UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM N-CSR

CERTIFIED SHAREHOLDER REPORT OF REGISTERED

MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES

Investment Company Act file number: 811-10183

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

(Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)

5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900

Irvine, CA 92614

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip code)

(Name and Address of Agent for Service)	Copy to:
Elizabeth M. Forget President Met Investors Series Trust 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900 Irvine, CA 92614	David C. Mahaffey, Esq. Sullivan & Worcester LLP 1666 K Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20006

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (800) 848-3854

Date of fiscal year end: December 31

Date of reporting period: December 31, 2011

Item 1: Report to Shareholders.

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Managed by AllianceBernstein L.P.

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

Since its inception on May 2, 2011, the Class B shares of the AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio returned -1.72%. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Dow Jones Moderate Index¹, returned -5.42%.

Market Environment/Conditions

Equity markets were extremely volatile in 2011, as the European sovereign-debt crisis cast a shadow over the global economy. After rising early in the year, stocks fell sharply for five straight months through September, then posted a late rally as European leaders stepped up efforts to stem the crisis. The fourth quarter showed how quickly markets can rally when sentiment turns. But even after the MSCI World Index rose over 7% in the fourth quarter, it was still down almost (6%) for the full year.

The stock market enjoyed a fourth quarter rebound as domestic political and double dip recession concerns that plagued the markets in the third quarter faded from memory. In spite of significant headwinds that remain in Europe and a slowing Chinese economy, the S&P 500 surged nearly 12% in the quarter, ending up 2% for the full year. While domestic stocks yielded modestly positive returns for the year, international stocks were not so fortunate. The MSCI EAFE Index was down (12%) for the year, while emerging markets stocks fell further, losing (18%) for the year.

Despite the downgrade of the U.S. credit rating, the 10-year Treasury yield ended the year at 1.9%, well-below the expected inflation rate. Investment-grade bonds performed well, resulting in the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returning nearly 8% for the year.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

The Portfolio outperformed the Dow Jones Global Moderate Index benchmark since inception on May 2. The outperformance was driven by the portfolio manager’s decision in 2011 to significantly derisk the portfolio from the end of June through September, reducing the portfolio’s exposure to equities and foreign currencies in favor of bonds and interest rate sensitive assets. This decision was driven by concerns that the European sovereign debt situation could spawn a financial system crisis and generate a renewed global recession.

However, as markets fell sharply and Treasuries rallied over the course of the third quarter, our research estimated that the compensation for taking risk was meaningfully improving; equity valuations appeared cheap, while bonds offered historically low yields, and economic data in the U.S. improved over the period. Though European political leaders lacked the consensus necessary to implement a bold solution to the crisis, such as a true fiscal union, the European Central Bank (ECB) provided significant liquidity to the European banking system, reducing the near-term likelihood of a Lehman-style crisis.

Against this backdrop, over the course of the fourth quarter we moved the portfolio to a less defensive posture, gradually reducing the underweight to equities and decreasing bond exposure to neutral. We were mindful of the risks emanating from Europe, and shifted away from European equities in favor of equities in other parts of the world. We also maintained the hedge against much of our exposure to the euro and other foreign currencies which have been highly correlated with equity markets.

Daniel Loewy, CFA

Co-Chief Investment Officer and Research Director—Dynamic Asset Allocation

AllianceBernstein, L.P.

Seth Masters

Co-Chief Investment Officer—Dynamic Asset Allocation, Chief Investment Officer—Asset Allocation and Bernstein Global Wealth Management

AllianceBernstein, L.P.

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Managed by AllianceBernstein L.P.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
U.S. Treasury Notes		18.9
U.S. Treasury Bonds		3.7
SPDR S&P MidCap 400 ETF Trust		2.7
iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund		2.7
Vanguard MSCI Emerging Markets ETF		1.9
Bundesrepublik Deutschland		1.2
Japan Government Ten Year Bond		1.0
Japan Government Twenty Year Bond		1.0
Federal National Mortgage Association		0.7
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation		0.6

Top Equity Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Financials		15.1
Non-Cyclical		5.5
Industrials		2.8
Energy		2.8
Communications		2.6

Top Fixed Income Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies		22.4
Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities		4.5

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio managed by
AllianceBernstein L.P. vs. Dow Jones Moderate Index¹

	Cumulative Return2 (for the period ended 12/31/11)
	Since Inception3
AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio—Class B		-1.72%
Dow Jones Moderate Index1		-5.42%

¹The Dow Jones Moderate Index is a total returns index designed to provide asset allocation strategists with a target risk benchmark. Each month, the index adjusts its weightings of stocks, bonds, and cash indices (both domestic and foreign) from Barclays and Dow Jones such that the risk of that combination will have 60% of the risk of an all equity portfolio.

²“Cumulative Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

³ Inception of the Class B shares is 5/2/2011. Index returns are based on an inception date of 5/2/2011.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class B(a)
Actual		0.97%	$	1,000.00	$	999.80	$	4.89
Hypothetical*		0.97%		1,000.00		1,020.31		4.94

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

(a) The annualized expense ratio reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 3 to the Financial Statements.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—31.7% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—0.5%
BAE Systems plc		78,951	$	348,230
Boeing Co. (The)		24,095		1,767,368
Cobham plc		24,891		70,651
Elbit Systems, Ltd.		552		22,690
European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. N.V.		9,754		304,139
Finmeccanica S.p.A.		9,488		35,064
General Dynamics Corp.		11,500		763,715
Goodrich Corp.		4,070		503,459
Honeywell International, Inc.		25,120		1,365,272
L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc.		3,205		213,709
Lockheed Martin Corp.		8,605		696,145
Meggitt PLC		18,403		100,738
Northrop Grumman Corp.		8,505		497,372
Precision Castparts Corp.		4,725		778,633
Raytheon Co.		11,195		541,614
Rockwell Collins, Inc.		4,935		273,251
Rolls-Royce Holdings plc*		44,354		512,491
Safran S.A.		3,911		117,164
Singapore Technologies Engineering, Ltd.		36,000		74,677
Textron, Inc.		8,950		165,486
Thales S.A.		2,495		78,682
United Technologies Corp.		29,345		2,144,826
				11,375,376
Air Freight & Logistics—0.2%
C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.		5,340		372,625
Deutsche Post AG		20,176		310,894
Expeditors International of Washington, Inc.		6,865		281,190
FedEx Corp.		10,270		857,648
TNT Express N.V.		8,260		61,693
Toll Holdings, Ltd.		15,816		68,286
United Parcel Service, Inc.—Class B		31,280		2,289,383
Yamato Holdings Co., Ltd.		9,400		158,220
				4,399,939
Airlines—0.0%
All Nippon Airways Co., Ltd.		19,000		53,072
Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd.		27,000		46,374
Deutsche Lufthansa AG		5,368		63,952
International Consolidated Airlines Group S.A.*		21,749		48,873
Qantas Airways, Ltd.*		26,021		38,884
Airlines—(Continued)
Singapore Airlines, Ltd.		12,000	$	93,918
Southwest Airlines Co.		25,225		215,926
				560,999
Auto Components—0.1%
Aisin Seiki Co., Ltd.		4,600		130,850
BorgWarner, Inc.*		3,570		227,552
Bridgestone Corp.		15,400		348,499
Cie Generale des Etablissements Michelin—Class B		4,303		253,532
Continental AG*		1,953		121,833
Denso Corp.		11,500		317,027
GKN plc		36,411		102,927
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (The)*		7,830		110,951
Johnson Controls, Inc.		22,015		688,189
Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.		2,000		28,017
NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd.		4,000		49,559
NHK Spring Co., Ltd.		3,000		26,538
NOK Corp.		2,500		42,897
Nokian Renkaat Oyj		2,581		83,003
Pirelli & C S.p.A.		5,577		46,872
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.		3,400		49,873
Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd.		4,000		47,953
Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd.		1,500		23,873
Toyota Boshoku Corp.		1,500		15,623
Toyota Industries Corp.		4,300		116,821
				2,832,389
Automobiles—0.4%
Bayerische Motoren Werke (BMW) AG		7,834		524,917
Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd.		5,000		89,122
Daimler AG		21,497		945,750
Fiat S.p.A.		17,932		82,187
Ford Motor Co.*		123,135		1,324,933
Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd.		13,000		78,389
Harley-Davidson, Inc.		7,525		292,497
Honda Motor Co., Ltd.		38,600		1,175,153
Isuzu Motors, Ltd.		28,000		129,252
Mazda Motor Corp.*		35,000		61,719
Mitsubishi Motors Corp.*		91,000		107,454
Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.		58,800		527,626
Peugeot S.A.		3,567		55,747
Renault S.A.		4,652		160,705
Suzuki Motor Corp.		8,000		164,884
Toyota Motor Corp.		65,300		2,172,668

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Automobiles—(Continued)
Volkswagen AG		727	$	97,682
Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd.		6,600		83,351
				8,074,036
Beverages—0.7%
Anheuser-Busch InBev N.V.		19,037		1,165,243
Asahi Group Holdings, Ltd.		9,200		202,094
Beam, Inc		5,035		257,943
Brown-Forman Corp.—Class B		3,305		266,086
Carlsberg A.S.—Class B		2,580		182,623
Coca-Cola Amatil, Ltd.		13,328		157,201
Coca-Cola Co. (The) (a)		73,685		5,155,739
Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc.		10,080		259,862
Coca-Cola Hellenic Bottling Co. S.A.*		4,296		72,659
Coca-Cola West Co., Ltd.		1,500		25,995
Constellation Brands, Inc.—Class A*		5,545		114,615
Diageo plc		59,347		1,295,465
Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc.		6,920		273,202
Heineken Holding N.V.		2,827		115,632
Heineken N.V.		6,189		286,358
Kirin Holdings Co., Ltd.		19,000		230,782
Molson Coors Brewing Co.—Class B		5,135		223,578
PepsiCo, Inc.		50,655		3,360,959
Pernod Ricard S.A.		4,703		436,266
SABMiller plc		22,633		793,744
				14,876,046
Biotechnology—0.2%
Actelion, Ltd.*		2,595		88,891
Amgen, Inc.		25,713		1,651,032
Biogen Idec, Inc.*		7,880		867,194
Celgene Corp.*		14,350		970,060
CSL, Ltd.		12,504		410,118
Gilead Sciences, Inc.*		24,375		997,669
Grifols S.A.*		3,247		54,634
				5,039,598
Building Products—0.1%
Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.		24,000		201,949
Assa Abloy AB—Class B		7,572		189,805
Cie de St-Gobain		9,581		368,004
Daikin Industries, Ltd.		5,600		153,060
Geberit AG*		942		181,674
Building Products—(Continued)
JS Group Corp.		6,300	$	120,825
Masco Corp.		11,545		120,992
Nippon Sheet Glass Co., Ltd.		21,000		39,219
TOTO, Ltd.		7,000		53,945
				1,429,473
Capital Markets—0.5%
3i Group plc		22,757		63,671
Ameriprise Financial, Inc.		7,285		361,627
Bank of New York Mellon Corp.		39,265		781,766
BlackRock, Inc.		3,300		588,192
Charles Schwab Corp. (The)		34,985		393,931
Credit Suisse Group AG*		26,969		633,949
Daiwa Securities Group, Inc.		39,000		121,354
Deutsche Bank AG		22,070		836,038
E*Trade Financial Corp.*		8,185		65,153
Federated Investors, Inc.—Class B		2,950		44,693
Franklin Resources, Inc.		4,727		454,076
GAM Holding AG*		4,420		47,853
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The)		15,930		1,440,550
ICAP plc		13,155		70,796
Invesco, Ltd.		14,550		292,309
Investec plc		11,334		59,456
Julius Baer Group, Ltd.*		4,990		194,423
Legg Mason, Inc.		3,980		95,719
Macquarie Group, Ltd.		8,332		202,957
Man Group plc		44,202		85,763
Mediobanca S.p.A.		12,113		69,784
Morgan Stanley		48,080		727,450
Nomura Holdings, Inc.		85,900		259,447
Northern Trust Corp.		7,780		308,555
Partners Group Holding AG		317		55,321
Ratos AB—B Shares		4,492		52,560
SBI Holdings, Inc.		531		38,828
Schroders plc		2,650		53,871
State Street Corp.		15,970		643,751
T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.		8,190		466,420
UBS AG*		86,334		1,027,360
				10,537,623
Chemicals—0.7%
Air Liquide S.A.		6,718		832,112
Air Products & Chemicals, Inc.		6,815		580,570
Air Water, Inc.		3,000		38,154
Airgas, Inc.		2,190		170,995
Akzo Nobel N.V.		5,540		267,154

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Chemicals—(Continued)
Arkema S.A.		1,372	$	97,143
Asahi Kasei Corp.		29,000		174,589
BASF SE		21,755		1,520,619
CF Industries Holdings, Inc.		2,190		317,506
Daicel Chemical Industries, Ltd.		6,000		36,508
Denki Kagaku Kogyo KK		11,000		40,660
Dow Chemical Co. (The)		38,280		1,100,933
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.		29,895		1,368,593
Eastman Chemical Co.		4,480		174,989
Ecolab, Inc.		9,705		561,046
FMC Corp.		2,290		197,032
Givaudan S.A.*		201		191,121
Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd.		2,500		43,964
Incitec Pivot, Ltd.		38,185		121,416
International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc.		2,645		138,651
Israel Chemicals, Ltd.		10,420		108,093
Israel Corp., Ltd. (The)		55		34,375
Johnson Matthey plc		5,202		148,174
JSR Corp.		4,300		79,186
K+S AG		4,137		186,953
Kaneka Corp.		6,000		31,924
Kansai Paint Co., Ltd.		5,000		44,583
Koninklijke DSM N.V.		3,724		172,942
Kuraray Co., Ltd.		8,000		113,637
Lanxess AG		2,048		106,197
Linde AG		4,044		602,953
Mitsubishi Chemical Holdings Corp.		32,000		175,997
Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Co., Inc.		9,000		49,843
Mitsui Chemicals, Inc.		19,000		57,896
Monsanto Co.		17,390		1,218,517
Mosaic Co. (The)		9,680		488,162
Nitto Denko Corp.		3,900		139,277
Novozymes A.S.—B Shares		5,580		172,217
Orica, Ltd.		8,720		216,751
PPG Industries, Inc.		5,035		420,372
Praxair, Inc.		9,715		1,038,534
Sherwin-Williams Co. (The)		2,850		254,420
Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd.		9,800		481,840
Showa Denko KK		35,000		70,827
Sigma-Aldrich Corp.		3,915		244,531
Sika AG		51		95,998
Solvay S.A.		1,447		118,965
Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd.		37,000		134,858
Syngenta AG*		2,253		664,300
Chemicals—(Continued)
Taiyo Nippon Sanso Corp.		6,000	$	41,803
Teijin, Ltd.		22,000		67,608
Toray Industries, Inc.		34,000		243,081
Tosoh Corp.		12,000		32,051
Ube Industries, Ltd.		23,000		62,925
Umicore S.A.		2,793		115,252
Wacker Chemie AG		367		29,585
Yara International ASA		4,440		178,122
				16,416,504
Commercial Banks—1.6%
Aozora Bank, Ltd.		13,000		35,745
Australia & New Zealand Banking Group, Ltd.		62,248		1,307,276
Banca Carige S.p.A.		15,155		28,984
Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena S.p.A.		115,545		37,524
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A.		108,530		934,876
Banco de Sabadell S.A.		26,070		98,925
Banco Espirito Santo S.A.		12,308		21,522
Banco Popolare SC		41,345		53,329
Banco Popular Espanol S.A.		22,767		103,831
Banco Santander S.A.		199,610		1,511,501
Bank Hapoalim BM		24,836		80,982
Bank Leumi Le-Israel BM		27,637		79,160
Bank of East Asia, Ltd.		36,400		138,280
Bank of Kyoto, Ltd. (The)		7,000		60,231
Bank of Yokohama, Ltd. (The)		29,000		136,988
Bankia S.A.*		20,309		94,602
Bankinter S.A.		4,995		30,640
Barclays plc		273,381		740,844
BB&T Corp.		22,575		568,213
Bendigo and Adelaide Bank, Ltd.		8,612		70,784
BNP Paribas S.A.		22,878		897,636
BOC Hong Kong Holdings, Ltd.		87,500		206,301
CaixaBank		17,524		85,881
Chiba Bank, Ltd. (The)		18,000		115,847
Chugoku Bank, Ltd. (The)		4,000		55,744
Comerica, Inc.		6,345		163,701
Commerzbank AG*		83,895		141,606
Commonwealth Bank of Australia		36,908		1,858,733
Credit Agricole S.A.		23,658		133,406
Danske Bank A.S.*		2,607		33,274
DBS Group Holdings, Ltd.		41,000		363,795
DnB NOR ASA		22,912		224,216

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Commercial Banks—(Continued)
Erste Group Bank AG		4,433	$	77,815
Fifth Third Bancorp.		29,795		378,992
First Horizon National Corp.		8,490		67,920
Fukuoka Financial Group, Inc.		18,000		75,629
Gunma Bank, Ltd. (The)		9,000		49,482
Hachijuni Bank, Ltd. (The)		9,000		51,372
Hang Seng Bank, Ltd.		18,100		214,493
Hiroshima Bank, Ltd. (The)		11,000		51,093
Hokuhoku Financial Group, Inc.		29,000		56,442
HSBC Holdings plc		422,573		3,208,979
Huntington Bancshares, Inc.		28,015		153,802
Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.		236,225		393,238
Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.—RSP		21,861		27,139
Israel Discount Bank, Ltd.—Class A*		18,530		24,812
Iyo Bank, Ltd. (The)		6,000		59,184
Joyo Bank, Ltd. (The)		15,000		66,304
KBC Grope N.V.		3,776		47,519
KeyCorp.		30,860		237,313
Lloyds Banking Group plc*		966,747		386,267
M&T Bank Corp.		4,065		310,322
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc.		301,600		1,279,125
Mizrahi Tefahot Bank, Ltd.		2,893		22,890
Mizuho Financial Group, Inc.		540,000		728,550
National Australia Bank, Ltd.		52,119		1,245,182
National Bank of Greece S.A.*		22,415		47,075
Natixis		20,454		51,426
Nishi-Nippon City Bank, Ltd. (The)		16,000		45,995
Nordea Bank AB		62,308		481,460
Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp., Ltd.		60,000		361,882
PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.		17,035		982,408
Raiffeisen Bank International AG		1,146		29,713
Regions Financial Corp.		40,725		175,118
Resona Holdings, Inc.		44,600		196,178
Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc*		412,031		130,670
Seven Bank, Ltd.		12,689		24,872
Shinsei Bank, Ltd.		32,000		33,163
Shizuoka Bank, Ltd. (The)		14,000		147,340
Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB—Class A		33,069		192,362
Societe Generale S.A.		15,620		347,447
Standard Chartered plc		56,354		1,227,403
Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, Inc.		31,800		884,483
Commercial Banks—(Continued)
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Holdings, Inc.		73,000	$	213,969
SunTrust Banks, Inc.		17,340		306,918
Suruga Bank, Ltd.		4,000		35,764
Svenska Handelsbanken AB— A Shares		11,678		306,976
Swedbank A.B.—A Shares		18,978		245,562
U.S. Bancorp.		61,835		1,672,637
UniCredit S.p.A.		31,632		261,371
Unione di Banche Italiane SCPA		18,623		76,051
United Overseas Bank, Ltd.		30,000		352,896
Wells Fargo & Co. (a)		170,880		4,709,453
Westpac Banking Corp.		71,750		1,467,683
Wing Hang Bank, Ltd.		4,000		32,712
Yamaguchi Financial Group, Inc.		5,000		47,692
Zions Bancorporation		5,900		96,052
				34,812,972
Commercial Services & Supplies—0.1%
Aggreko plc		6,418		200,267
Avery Dennison Corp.		3,360		96,365
Babcock International Group plc		8,418		95,801
Brambles, Ltd.		34,683		254,128
Cintas Corp.		3,520		122,531
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd.		13,000		125,162
Edenred		3,708		91,110
G4S plc		33,071		139,248
Iron Mountain, Inc.		6,010		185,108
Pitney Bowes, Inc.		6,410		118,841
Republic Services, Inc.		10,115		278,668
RR Donnelley & Sons Co.		6,010		86,724
Secom Co., Ltd.		5,000		230,387
Securitas AB—B Shares		7,341		63,341
Serco Group plc		11,568		85,093
Societe BIC S.A.		684		60,696
Stericycle, Inc.*		2,745		213,890
Suez Environnement Co.		6,718		77,311
Toppan Printing Co., Ltd.		13,000		95,461
Waste Management, Inc.		14,905		487,542
				3,107,674
Communications Equipment—0.4%
Alcatel-Lucent*		54,398		84,994
Cisco Systems, Inc.		174,270		3,150,802
F5 Networks, Inc.*		2,645		280,687
Harris Corp.		3,720		134,069

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Communications Equipment—(Continued)
JDS Uniphase Corp.*		7,370	$	76,943
Juniper Networks, Inc.*		17,040		347,786
Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc.*		8,560		332,128
Motorola Solutions, Inc.		9,230		427,257
Nokia Oyj		87,799		425,220
QUALCOMM, Inc.		54,485		2,980,330
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson—Class B		71,118		723,079
				8,963,295
Computers & Peripherals—0.8%
Apple, Inc.* (a)		30,225		12,241,125
Dell, Inc.*		49,455		723,527
EMC Corp.*		66,110		1,424,009
Fujitsu, Ltd.		44,000		228,247
Hewlett-Packard Co.		64,420		1,659,459
Lexmark International, Inc.—Class A		2,290		75,730
NEC Corp.*		61,000		123,396
NetApp, Inc.*		11,600		420,732
SanDisk Corp.*		7,825		385,068
Seiko Epson Corp.		3,100		41,106
Toshiba Corp.		95,000		387,849
Western Digital Corp.*		7,525		232,899
				17,943,147
Construction & Engineering—0.1%
ACS Actividades de Construccion y Servicios S.A.		3,320		98,497
Balfour Beatty plc		16,095		65,949
Bouygues S.A.		4,474		140,689
Chiyoda Corp.		4,000		40,620
Eiffage S.A.		950		22,940
Ferrovial S.A.		8,599		103,909
Fluor Corp.		5,495		276,124
Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas S.A.		1,194		31,004
Hochtief AG		993		57,566
Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.*		4,120		167,190
JGC Corp.		5,000		119,828
Kajima Corp.		20,000		61,387
Kinden Corp.		3,000		25,325
Koninklijke Boskalis Westminster N.V.		1,657		60,940
Leighton Holdings, Ltd.		3,551		69,157
Obayashi Corp.		15,000		66,572
Construction & Engineering—(Continued)
Quanta Services, Inc.*		6,765	$	145,718
Shimizu Corp.		14,000		58,679
Skanska AB—B Shares		9,376		154,773
Taisei Corp.		24,000		60,734
Vinci S.A.		10,687		467,298
				2,294,899
Construction Materials—0.1%
Boral, Ltd.		17,112		63,017
Cimpor Cimentos de Portugal SGPS S.A.		4,726		32,590
CRH plc		17,082		338,353
Fletcher Building, Ltd.		15,908		76,177
HeidelbergCement AG		3,312		140,858
Holcim, Ltd.*		5,847		312,942
Imerys S.A.		797		36,593
James Hardie Industries SE		10,252		71,712
Lafarge S.A.		4,837		169,382
Vulcan Materials Co.		4,120		162,122
				1,403,746
Consumer Finance—0.1%
Aeon Credit Service Co., Ltd.		1,900		29,977
American Express Co.		32,760		1,545,289
Capital One Financial Corp.		14,845		627,795
Credit Saison Co., Ltd.		3,500		70,043
Discover Financial Services		17,745		425,880
SLM Corp.		16,435		220,229
				2,919,213
Containers & Packaging—0.0%
Amcor, Ltd.		28,776		212,433
Ball Corp.		5,240		187,121
Bemis Co., Inc.		3,260		98,061
Owens-Illinois, Inc.*		5,240		101,551
Rexam plc		20,560		112,546
Sealed Air Corp.		6,135		105,583
Toyo Seikan Kaisha, Ltd.		3,600		49,017
				866,312
Distributors—0.0%
Genuine Parts Co.		5,015		306,918
Jardine Cycle & Carriage, Ltd.		3,000		111,589
Li & Fung, Ltd.		134,000		246,341
				664,848

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Diversified Consumer Services—0.0%
Apollo Group, Inc.—Class A*		3,715	$	200,127
Benesse Holdings, Inc.		1,600		77,405
DeVry, Inc.		1,885		72,497
H&R Block, Inc.		9,415		153,747
				503,776
Diversified Financial Services—0.6%
ASX, Ltd.		4,262		133,430
Bank of America Corp.		328,540		1,826,682
Citigroup, Inc.		94,710		2,491,820
CME Group, Inc.		2,185		532,419
Deutsche Boerse AG*		4,659		244,803
Eurazeo		837		29,706
Exor S.p.A.		1,503		30,123
First Pacific Co., Ltd.		50,300		52,327
Groupe Bruxelles Lambert S.A.		1,966		130,917
Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing, Ltd.		24,300		390,992
Industrivarden AB—C Shares		2,760		32,816
ING Groep N.V.*		90,505		646,404
IntercontinentalExchange, Inc.*		2,390		288,115
Investor AB—B Shares		10,944		203,552
JPMorgan Chase & Co.		123,190		4,096,067
Kinnevik Investment AB—Class B		4,822		93,936
Leucadia National Corp.		6,405		145,650
London Stock Exchange Group plc		3,496		43,112
Mitsubishi UFJ Lease & Finance Co., Ltd.		1,380		54,613
Moody’s Corp.		6,255		210,668
NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. (The)*		4,080		100,001
NYSE Euronext		8,490		221,589
ORIX Corp.		2,480		204,384
Pargesa Holding S.A.		634		41,402
Pohjola Bank plc—A Shares		3,239		31,415
Singapore Exchange, Ltd.		20,000		94,469
				12,371,412
Diversified Telecommunication Services—0.9%
AT&T, Inc. (a)		192,125		5,809,860
Belgacom S.A.		3,726		116,894
Bezeq The Israeli Telecommunication Corp., Ltd.		41,170		75,436
BT Group plc		184,063		543,743
CenturyLink, Inc.		20,020		744,744
Deutsche Telekom AG		66,319		762,581
Elisa Oyj		3,315		69,187
Diversified Telecommunication Services—(Continued)
France Telecom S.A.		44,073	$	691,276
Frontier Communications Corp.		32,185		165,753
Hellenic Telecommunications Organization S.A.		5,745		20,731
HKT Trust/HKT Ltd.*		2,043		1,200
Iliad S.A.		492		60,823
Inmarsat plc		10,095		63,219
Koninklijke KPN N.V.		34,985		418,620
Nippon Telegraph & Telephone Corp.		11,400		578,815
PCCW, Ltd.		94,000		32,349
Portugal Telecom SGPS S.A.		15,764		91,084
Singapore Telecommunications, Ltd.		188,000		448,857
Swisscom AG		561		212,486
TDC A.S.		8,704		69,810
Tele2 AB—B Shares		7,433		144,608
Telecom Corp. of New Zealand, Ltd.		45,442		72,899
Telecom Italia S.p.A.		361,322		361,830
Telefonica S.A.		97,261		1,682,268
Telekom Austria AG		7,790		93,507
Telenor ASA		17,136		280,786
TeliaSonera AB		50,759		344,200
Telstra Corp., Ltd.		102,103		348,287
Verizon Communications, Inc. (a)		91,720		3,679,806
Vivendi		29,527		646,049
Windstream Corp.		18,870		221,534
				18,853,242
Electric Utilities—0.6%
Acciona S.A.		598		51,688
American Electric Power Co., Inc.		15,610		644,849
Cheung Kong Infrastructure Holdings, Ltd.		11,000		63,956
Chubu Electric Power Co., Inc.		16,200		302,400
Chugoku Electric Power Co., Inc. (The)		7,000		122,692
CLP Holdings, Ltd.		45,282		385,287
Contact Energy, Ltd.*		7,208		29,641
Duke Energy Corp.		43,115		948,530
E.On AG		42,726		920,505
EDF S.A.		5,823		141,452
Edison International		10,575		437,805
EDP—Energias de Portugal S.A.		44,745		138,755
Enel S.p.A.		155,858		633,013
Entergy Corp.		5,695		416,020

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Electric Utilities—(Continued)
Exelon Corp.		21,505	$	932,672
FirstEnergy Corp.		13,525		599,157
Fortum Oyj		10,639		226,861
Hokkaido Electric Power Co., Inc.		4,300		61,228
Hokuriku Electric Power Co.		4,000		74,687
Iberdrola S.A.		90,536		565,849
Kansai Electric Power Co., Inc. (The)		17,800		273,054
Kyushu Electric Power Co., Inc.		9,500		136,008
NextEra Energy, Inc.		13,675		832,534
Northeast Utilities		5,745		207,222
Pepco Holdings, Inc.		7,270		147,581
Pinnacle West Capital Corp.		3,510		169,112
Power Assets Holdings, Ltd.		32,500		240,351
PPL Corp.		18,705		550,301
Progress Energy, Inc.		9,510		532,750
Red Electrica Corp. S.A.		2,655		113,539
Scottish & Southern Energy plc		22,217		445,235
Shikoku Electric Power Co., Inc		4,300		123,142
Southern Co.		27,905		1,291,722
SP AusNet		32,765		31,540
Terna Rete Elettrica Nazionale S.p.A.		28,274		95,231
Tohoku Electric Power Co., Inc		10,700		102,793
Tokyo Electric Power Co., Inc (The)*		34,200		81,230
Verbund AG		1,597		42,871
				13,113,263
Electrical Equipment—0.2%
ABB, Ltd.*		52,024		980,504
Alstom S.A.		4,988		150,758
Bekaert S.A.		913		29,206
Cooper Industries plc		5,100		276,165
Emerson Electric Co.		23,855		1,111,404
Fuji Electric Co., Ltd.		13,000		35,569
Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd.		15,000		34,430
GS Yuasa Corp.		8,000		42,960
Legrand S.A.		5,299		170,136
Mabuchi Motor Co., Ltd.		600		25,021
Mitsubishi Electric Corp.		46,000		439,705
Nidec Corp.		2,600		225,611
Prysmian S.p.A.		4,775		59,143
Rockwell Automation, Inc.		4,575		335,668
Roper Industries, Inc.		3,150		273,641
Schneider Electric S.A.		11,662		610,831
Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.		17,800		193,482
Electrical Equipment—(Continued)
Ushio, Inc.		2,500	$	36,026
Vestas Wind Systems A.S.*		4,776		51,463
				5,081,723
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—0.2%
Amphenol Corp.—Class A		5,395		244,879
Citizen Holdings Co., Ltd.		6,200		35,917
Corning, Inc.		50,940		661,201
FLIR Systems, Inc.		5,035		126,227
Foxconn International Holdings, Ltd.*		51,000		32,779
FUJIFILM Holdings Corp.		11,000		260,100
Hamamatsu Photonics KK		1,600		55,905
Hexagon AB—B Shares		5,942		88,369
Hirose Electric Co., Ltd.		800		70,060
Hitachi High-Technologies Corp.		1,500		32,501
Hitachi, Ltd.		107,000		560,702
Hoya Corp.		10,300		221,501
Ibiden Co., Ltd.		2,900		57,538
Jabil Circuit, Inc.		5,905		116,092
Keyence Corp.		1,000		240,833
Kyocera Corp.		3,700		297,036
Molex, Inc.		4,375		104,388
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.		4,800		246,222
Nippon Electric Glass Co., Ltd.		9,000		89,392
Omron Corp.		4,800		96,311
Shimadzu Corp.		5,000		42,294
TDK Corp.		3,000		132,609
TE Connectivity, Ltd.		13,740		423,329
Yaskawa Electric Corp.		5,000		42,495
Yokogawa Electric Corp.*		5,100		45,965
				4,324,645
Energy Equipment & Services—0.4%
Aker Solutions ASA		3,854		40,374
AMEC plc		7,782		109,222
Baker Hughes, Inc.		14,185		689,958
Cameron International Corp.*		7,980		392,536
Cie Generale de Geophysique—Veritas*		3,382		78,870
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc.		2,285		126,269
FMC Technologies, Inc.*		7,730		403,738
Fugro N.V.		1,690		97,903
Halliburton Co.		29,790		1,028,053
Helmerich & Payne, Inc.		3,505		204,552
Nabors Industries, Ltd.*		9,255		160,482

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Energy Equipment & Services—(Continued)
National Oilwell Varco, Inc.		13,775	$	936,562
Noble Corp.*		8,185		247,351
Petrofac, Ltd.		6,079		135,803
Rowan Cos., Inc.*		4,020		121,927
Saipem S.p.A.		6,327		268,019
SBM Offshore N.V.		4,189		86,302
Schlumberger, Ltd.		43,530		2,973,534
Seadrill, Ltd.		7,853		262,447
Subsea 7 SA*		6,598		121,993
Technip S.A.		2,383		223,221
Tenaris S.A.		11,337		210,837
Transocean, Ltd.		7,601		293,961
WorleyParsons, Ltd.		4,711		123,688
				9,337,602
Food & Staples Retailing—0.7%
Aeon Co., Ltd.		14,200		194,838
Carrefour S.A.		13,737		312,921
Casino Guichard Perrachon S.A.		1,357		114,289
Colruyt S.A.		1,776		67,248
Costco Wholesale Corp.		14,085		1,173,562
CVS Caremark Corp.		42,135		1,718,265
Delhaize Group S.A.		2,468		138,690
Distribuidora Internacional de Alimentacion S.A.*		13,537		61,240
FamilyMart Co., Ltd.		1,500		60,568
J Sainsbury plc		28,569		134,272
Jeronimo Martins SGPS S.A.*		5,164		85,482
Kesko Oyj		1,569		52,721
Koninklijke Ahold N.V.		27,644		372,584
Kroger Co. (The)		19,290		467,204
Lawson, Inc.		1,500		93,583
Metcash, Ltd.		18,025		74,584
Metro AG		3,148		115,148
Olam International, Ltd.		34,000		55,708
Safeway, Inc.		11,000		231,440
Seven & I Holdings Co., Ltd.		17,900		498,277
SUPERVALU, Inc.		6,865		55,744
Sysco Corp.		19,065		559,176
Tesco plc		189,246		1,185,112
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (a)		56,624		3,383,850
Walgreen Co.		28,795		951,963
Wesfarmers, Ltd.		23,885		721,333
Whole Foods Market, Inc.		5,180		360,424
WM Morrison Supermarkets plc		51,254		259,117
Food & Staples Retailing—(Continued)
Woolworths, Ltd.		28,519	$	733,097
				14,232,440
Food Products—0.8%
Ajinomoto Co., Inc.		16,000		191,897
Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.		21,645		619,047
Aryzta AG		2,088		100,927
Associated British Foods plc		8,353		143,554
Barry Callebaut AG*		43		42,400
Campbell Soup Co.		5,800		192,792
ConAgra Foods, Inc.		13,370		352,968
Danone S.A.		13,865		872,853
Dean Foods Co.*		5,900		66,080
General Mills, Inc.		20,840		842,144
Golden Agri-Resources, Ltd.		158,000		86,996
H.J. Heinz Co.		10,375		560,665
Hershey Co. (The)		4,935		304,884
Hormel Foods Corp.		4,375		128,144
J.M. Smucker Co. (The)		3,715		290,402
Kellogg Co.		7,985		403,801
Kerry Group plc—Class A		3,431		126,103
Kikkoman Corp.		4,000		45,890
Kraft Foods, Inc.—Class A		57,240		2,138,486
Lindt & Spruengli AG		26		168,810
McCormick & Co., Inc.		4,270		215,293
Mead Johnson Nutrition Co.		6,560		450,869
MEIJI Holdings Co., Ltd.		1,700		70,499
Nestle S.A.		78,138		4,494,256
Nippon Meat Packers, Inc.		4,000		49,721
Nisshin Seifun Group, Inc.		4,500		54,492
Nissin Foods Holdings Co., Ltd.		1,400		54,812
Sara Lee Corp.		19,065		360,710
Suedzucker AG		1,554		49,578
Tate & Lyle plc		11,067		120,879
Toyo Suisan Kaisha, Ltd.		2,000		48,430
Tyson Foods, Inc.—Class A		9,410		194,222
Unilever N.V.		38,613		1,328,999
Unilever plc		30,457		1,022,694
Wilmar International, Ltd.		45,439		175,327
Yakult Honsha Co., Ltd.		2,300		72,401
Yamazaki Baking Co., Ltd.		3,000		39,375
				16,481,400
Gas Utilities—0.1%
AGL Resources, Inc.		3,760		158,912
Enagas S.A.		4,198		77,564

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Gas Utilities—(Continued)
Gas Natural SDG S.A.		8,218	$	140,954
Hong Kong & China Gas Co., Ltd.		112,000		259,750
Oneok, Inc.		3,310		286,944
Osaka Gas Co., Ltd.		44,000		173,550
Snam Rete Gas S.p.A.		37,676		165,971
Toho Gas Co., Ltd.		9,000		57,280
Tokyo Gas Co., Ltd.		58,000		266,460
				1,587,385
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—0.4%
Baxter International, Inc.		18,260		903,505
Becton, Dickinson & Co.		7,020		524,534
Boston Scientific Corp.*		48,020		256,427
C.R. Bard, Inc.		2,745		234,698
CareFusion Corp.*		7,270		184,731
Cie Generale d’Optique Essilor International S.A.		4,788		338,329
Cochlear, Ltd.		1,417		90,159
Coloplast A.S.—Class B		569		81,860
Covidien plc		15,665		705,082
DENTSPLY International, Inc.		4,575		160,079
Edwards Lifesciences Corp.*		3,710		262,297
Getinge AB—B Shares		4,693		118,664
Intuitive Surgical, Inc.*		1,320		611,173
Medtronic, Inc.		34,225		1,309,106
Olympus Corp.		5,100		66,978
Smith & Nephew plc		20,922		202,804
Sonova Holding AG*		1,202		125,930
St. Jude Medical, Inc.		10,275		352,433
Straumann Holding AG		212		36,639
Stryker Corp.		10,530		523,446
Synthes, Inc. (144A)		1,562		261,938
Sysmex Corp.		1,700		55,338
Terumo Corp.		4,000		188,112
Varian Medical Systems, Inc.*		3,615		242,675
William Demant Holding A.S.*		548		45,597
Zimmer Holdings, Inc.*		5,805		310,103
				8,192,637
Health Care Providers & Services—0.4%
Aetna, Inc.		11,755		495,943
Alfresa Holdings Corp.		1,000		42,104
AmerisourceBergen Corp.		8,345		310,351
Cardinal Health, Inc.		11,140		452,395
Celesio AG		1,994		31,659
CIGNA Corp.		9,245		388,290
Health Care Providers & Services—(Continued)
Coventry Health Care, Inc.*		4,580	$	139,095
DaVita, Inc.*		3,050		231,221
Express Scripts, Inc.*		15,735		703,197
Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA		4,973		338,653
Fresenius SE & Co. KGaA		2,722		252,376
Humana, Inc.		5,290		463,457
Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings*		3,205		275,534
McKesson Corp.		7,985		622,111
Medco Health Solutions, Inc.*		12,515		699,589
Medipal Holdings Corp.		3,500		36,515
Miraca Holdings, Inc.		1,314		52,335
Patterson Cos., Inc.		2,750		81,180
Quest Diagnostics, Inc.		5,135		298,138
Ramsay Health Care, Ltd.		3,080		60,810
Sonic Healthcare, Ltd.		8,651		99,886
Suzuken Co., Ltd.		1,700		47,082
Tenet Healthcare Corp.*		14,010		71,871
UnitedHealth Group, Inc.		34,590		1,753,021
WellPoint, Inc.		11,250		745,313
				8,692,126
Health Care Technology—0.0%
Cerner Corp.*		4,680		286,650
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—0.4%
Accor S.A.		3,458		87,342
Autogrill S.p.A.		2,684		26,157
Carnival Corp.		14,580		475,891
Carnival plc		4,451		146,296
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.*		1,015		342,806
Compass Group plc		44,960		425,851
Crown, Ltd.		11,248		93,159
Darden Restaurants, Inc.		4,275		194,854
Echo Entertainment Group, Ltd.*		16,057		59,001
Galaxy Entertainment Group, Ltd.*		29,071		52,645
Genting Singapore plc*		144,000		167,384
Intercontinental Hotels Group plc		6,805		121,760
International Game Technology		9,610		165,292
Marriott International, Inc.—Class A		8,655		252,466
McDonald’s Corp.		33,160		3,326,943
McDonald’s Holdings Co. Japan, Ltd.		1,600		43,164
OPAP S.A.		5,235		46,362

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—(Continued)
Oriental Land Co., Ltd.		1,200	$	126,705
Sands China, Ltd.*		56,535		160,230
Shangri-La Asia, Ltd.		32,000		55,167
SJM Holdings, Ltd.		38,756		62,456
Sky City Entertainment Group, Ltd.		13,526		36,268
Sodexo		2,284		164,228
Starbucks Corp.		24,100		1,108,841
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.		6,205		297,654
TABCORP. Holdings, Ltd.		16,057		44,884
Tatts Group, Ltd.		30,916		77,225
TUI Travel plc		11,795		30,280
Whitbread plc		4,154		100,815
Wyndham Worldwide Corp.		4,945		187,069
Wynn Macau, Ltd.		36,478		90,828
Wynn Resorts, Ltd.		2,640		291,694
Yum! Brands, Inc.		14,900		879,249
				9,740,966
Household Durables—0.1%
Casio Computer Co., Ltd.		5,600		33,927
D.R. Horton, Inc.		8,950		112,860
Electrolux AB—Series B		5,634		89,467
Harman International Industries, Inc.		2,290		87,112
Husqvarna AB—B Shares		10,375		47,719
Leggett & Platt, Inc.		4,480		103,219
Lennar Corp.—Class A		5,135		100,903
Newell Rubbermaid, Inc.		9,355		151,083
Panasonic Corp.		52,300		443,651
Pulte Group, Inc.*		10,880		68,653
Rinnai Corp.		800		57,221
Sekisui Chemical Co., Ltd.		10,000		82,331
Sekisui House, Ltd.		13,000		115,068
Sharp Corp.		23,690		206,782
Sony Corp.		23,800		428,813
Whirlpool Corp.		2,490		118,151
				2,246,960
Household Products—0.4%
Clorox Co. (The)		4,275		284,544
Colgate-Palmolive Co.		15,665		1,447,289
Henkel AG & Co. KGaA		3,154		153,010
Kimberly-Clark Corp.		12,815		942,671
Procter & Gamble Co. (The) (a)		89,255		5,954,201
Reckitt Benckiser Group plc		14,714		725,338
Household Products—(Continued)
Unicharm Corp.		2,700	$	133,065
				9,640,118
Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders—0.0%
AES Corp. (The)*		20,805		246,331
Constellation Energy Group, Inc.		6,510		258,252
EDP Renovaveis S.A.*		5,112		31,279
Electric Power Development Co., Ltd.		2,800		74,401
Enel Green Power S.p.A.		41,028		85,610
International Power plc		35,825		187,488
NRG Energy, Inc.*		7,435		134,722
				1,018,083
Industrial Conglomerates—0.6%
3M Co.		22,735		1,858,132
Danaher Corp.		18,490		869,770
Delek Group, Ltd.		109		20,529
Fraser and Neave, Ltd.		21,000		100,420
General Electric Co. (a)		342,205		6,128,891
Hutchison Whampoa, Ltd.		50,000		418,325
Keppel Corp., Ltd.		33,000		236,297
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.		23,923		502,442
NWS Holdings, Ltd.		32,000		47,108
Orkla A.S.A.		18,092		134,850
SembCorp Industries, Ltd.		23,000		71,688
Siemens AG		19,482		1,867,444
Smiths Group plc		9,195		130,108
Tyco International, Ltd.		15,005		700,884
Wendel S.A.		840		55,849
				13,142,737
Insurance—1.0%
ACE, Ltd.		10,930		766,412
Admiral Group plc		4,754		62,840
Aegon N.V.*		40,294		160,856
Aflac, Inc.		15,155		655,605
Ageas		51,872		80,540
AIA Group, Ltd.		199,573		622,018
Allianz SE		10,765		1,031,123
Allstate Corp. (The)		16,335		447,742
American International Group, Inc.*		14,085		326,772
AMP, Ltd.		65,919		274,482
Aon Corp.		10,430		488,124
Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A.		27,693		415,801

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Insurance—(Continued)
Assurant, Inc.		2,955	$	121,332
Aviva plc		67,120		311,700
AXA S.A.		41,208		532,255
Baloise Holding AG		1,187		81,198
Berkshire Hathaway, Inc.—Class B* (a)		57,030		4,351,389
Chubb Corp. (The)		9,010		623,672
Cincinnati Financial Corp.		5,240		159,610
CNP Assurances		3,483		43,179
Dai-ichi Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (The)		216		211,973
Delta Lloyd N.V.		2,357		39,531
Genworth Financial, Inc.—Class A*		15,915		104,243
Gjensidige Forsikring ASA		4,689		54,397
Hannover Rueckversicherung AG		1,510		75,065
Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (The)		14,390		233,838
Insurance Australia Group, Ltd.		48,742		148,649
Legal & General Group plc		137,628		218,559
Lincoln National Corp.		9,720		188,762
Loews Corp.		9,870		371,606
Mapfre S.A.		17,654		55,922
Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.		17,440		551,453
MetLife, Inc. (b)		34,265		1,068,383
MS&AD Insurance Group Holdings		13,500		249,708
Muenchener Rueckversicherungs AG		4,247		522,101
NKSJ Holdings, Inc.		9,500		186,066
Old Mutual plc		129,600		271,319
Principal Financial Group, Inc.		9,875		242,925
Progressive Corp. (The)		19,955		389,322
Prudential Financial, Inc.		15,310		767,337
Prudential plc		60,268		594,061
QBE Insurance Group, Ltd.		25,999		344,956
Resolution, Ltd.		33,109		128,751
RSA Insurance Group plc		82,623		134,444
Sampo Oyj—A Shares		10,048		249,522
SCOR SE		4,159		97,123
Sony Financial Holdings, Inc.		4,120		60,600
Standard Life plc		54,579		174,085
Suncorp. Group, Ltd.		30,164		258,596
Swiss Life Holding AG*		765		70,077
Swiss Re, Ltd.*		8,176		417,147
T&D Holdings, Inc.		13,700		127,413
Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc.		17,200		380,366
Insurance—(Continued)
Torchmark Corp.		3,260	$	141,451
Travelers Cos., Inc. (The)		13,380		791,695
Tryg A.S.		600		33,330
Unum Group		9,415		198,374
Vienna Insurance Group AG Wiener Versicherung Gruppe		901		35,730
XL Group plc		10,315		203,928
Zurich Financial Services AG*		3,462		783,190
				22,732,648
Internet & Catalog Retail—0.2%
Amazon.com, Inc.*		11,870		2,054,697
Expedia, Inc.		3,065		88,946
Netflix, Inc.*		1,843		127,702
Priceline.com, Inc.*		1,645		769,383
Rakuten Inc*		172		184,931
TripAdvisor, Inc.*		3,065		77,269
				3,302,928
Internet Software & Services—0.4%
Akamai Technologies, Inc.*		5,800		187,224
Dena Co., Ltd.		2,321		69,405
eBay, Inc.*		37,215		1,128,731
Google, Inc.—Class A* (a)		8,285		5,351,281
Gree, Inc.		2,151		73,949
United Internet AG		2,638		47,221
VeriSign, Inc.		5,145		183,779
Yahoo Japan Corp.		345		110,995
Yahoo!, Inc.*		40,155		647,700
				7,800,285
IT Services—0.7%
Accenture plc—Class A		20,785		1,106,386
Amadeus IT Holding S.A.—A Shares		7,419		120,119
Atos		1,160		50,867
Automatic Data Processing, Inc.		15,865		856,869
Cap Gemini S.A.		3,479		108,457
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp.—Class A*		9,815		631,203
Computer Sciences Corp.		4,935		116,959
Computershare, Ltd.		10,422		85,457
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.		7,795		207,269
Fiserv, Inc.*		4,580		269,029
Indra Sistemas S.A.		2,309		29,332

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
IT Services—(Continued)
International Business Machines Corp. (a)		38,255	$	7,034,329
Itochu Techno-Solutions Corp.		700		31,398
MasterCard, Inc.—Class A		3,470		1,293,685
Nomura Research Institute, Ltd.		2,400		54,187
NTT Data Corp.		30		95,684
Otsuka Corp.		400		27,534
Paychex, Inc.		10,375		312,391
SAIC, Inc.*		8,860		108,889
Teradata Corp.*		5,440		263,894
Total System Services, Inc.		5,235		102,397
Visa, Inc.—Class A		16,510		1,676,260
Western Union Co.		20,050		366,113
				14,948,708
Leisure Equipment & Products—0.0%
Hasbro, Inc.		3,675		117,196
Mattel, Inc.		10,935		303,556
Namco Bandai Holdings, Inc.		4,600		65,439
Nikon Corp.		8,100		180,063
Sankyo Co., Ltd.		1,300		65,813
Sega Sammy Holdings, Inc.		5,100		110,047
Shimano, Inc.		1,800		87,349
Yamaha Corp.		3,700		33,878
				963,341
Life Sciences Tools & Services—0.1%
Agilent Technologies, Inc.*		11,235		392,439
Life Technologies Corp.*		5,795		225,483
Lonza Group AG*		1,260		74,279
PerkinElmer, Inc.		3,660		73,200
QIAGEN N.V.*		5,479		75,616
Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.*		12,260		551,332
Waters Corp.*		2,950		218,448
				1,610,797
Machinery—0.6%
Alfa Laval AB		7,916		149,449
Amada Co., Ltd.		8,000		50,580
Atlas Copco A.B.—A Shares		16,002		342,876
Atlas Copco A.B.—B Shares		9,149		173,290
Caterpillar, Inc.		20,945		1,897,617
Cosco Corp. Singapore, Ltd.		23,000		15,507
Cummins, Inc.		6,255		550,565
Deere & Co.		13,475		1,042,291
Dover Corp.		6,000		348,300
Machinery—(Continued)
Eaton Corp.		10,835	$	471,648
FANUC Corp.		4,600		702,927
Fiat Industrial S.p.A.*		17,926		153,072
Flowserve Corp.		1,780		176,790
GEA Group AG		4,263		120,820
Hino Motors, Ltd.		6,000		36,329
Hitachi Construction Machinery Co., Ltd.		2,600		43,671
IHI Corp.		31,000		75,179
Illinois Tool Works, Inc.		15,670		731,946
Ingersoll-Rand plc		10,075		306,985
Invensys plc		18,984		61,922
Japan Steel Works, Ltd. (The)		7,000		48,561
Joy Global, Inc.		3,405		255,273
JTEKT Corp.		5,200		51,043
Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd.		33,000		82,133
Komatsu, Ltd.		22,500		524,580
Kone Oyj—Class B		3,744		194,100
Kubota Corp.		27,000		225,833
Kurita Water Industries, Ltd.		2,700		70,245
Makita Corp.		2,700		87,210
MAN SE		1,552		138,293
Metso Oyj		3,113		114,972
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.		71,000		302,100
Nabtesco Corp.		2,000		36,338
NGK Insulators, Ltd.		6,000		71,033
NSK, Ltd.		10,000		64,822
NTN Corp.		11,000		44,211
PACCAR, Inc.		11,595		434,465
Pall Corp.		3,710		212,026
Parker Hannifin Corp.		4,935		376,294
Sandvik AB		24,032		293,487
Scania AB—B Shares		7,503		110,801
Schindler Holding AG		1,693		196,749
SembCorp. Marine, Ltd.		19,000		55,818
SKF AB—B Shares		9,388		198,396
SMC Corp.		1,300		209,323
Snap-On, Inc.		1,880		95,166
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.		5,440		367,744
Sulzer AG		610		65,034
Sumitomo Heavy Industries, Ltd.		13,000		75,657
THK Co., Ltd.		2,900		56,965
Vallourec S.A.		2,711		175,612
Volvo AB		32,884		357,834
Wartsila Oyj		4,086		117,842

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Machinery—(Continued)
Weir Group plc (The)		5,121	$	160,715
Xylem, Inc		5,900		151,571
Yangzijiang Shipbuilding Holdings, Ltd.		44,890		31,461
Zardoya Otis S.A.		3,441		47,160
				13,552,631
Marine—0.0%
A.P. Moller—Maersk A.S.—Class A		14		87,240
A.P. Moller—Maersk A.S.—Class B		32		211,036
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd.		17,000		30,628
Kuehne & Nagel International AG		1,309		146,773
Mitsui OSK Lines, Ltd.		27,000		104,405
Neptune Orient Lines, Ltd.		21,000		18,185
Nippon Yusen KK		36,000		91,990
Orient Overseas International, Ltd.		5,000		29,068
				719,325
Media—0.7%
Axel Springer AG		928		39,968
British Sky Broadcasting Group plc		27,131		308,409
Cablevision Systems Corp.—Class A		7,125		101,318
CBS Corp.—Class B		21,210		575,639
Comcast Corp.—Class A		88,340		2,094,541
Dentsu, Inc.		4,300		130,989
DIRECTV—Class A*		22,875		978,135
Discovery Communications, Inc.—Class A*		8,550		350,294
Eutelsat Communications S.A.		2,323		90,676
Fairfax Media, Ltd.		52,383		38,579
Gannett Co., Inc.		7,630		102,013
Hakuhodo DY Holdings, Inc.		560		32,112
Interpublic Group of Cos., Inc. (The)		14,915		145,123
ITV plc		86,620		91,366
JCDecaux S.A.*		1,559		35,874
Jupiter Telecommunications Co., Ltd.		42		42,559
Kabel Deutschland Holding AG*		2,202		111,682
Lagardere SCA		2,767		72,916
McGraw-Hill Cos, Inc. (The)		9,515		427,890
Mediaset S.p.A.		16,616		45,942
Modern Times Group AB— B Shares		1,237		58,946
News Corp.—Class A		71,025		1,267,086
Omnicom Group, Inc.		8,955		399,214
Media—(Continued)
Pearson plc		19,361	$	362,713
Publicis Groupe S.A.		3,406		156,667
Reed Elsevier N.V.		16,126		187,976
Reed Elsevier plc		28,509		229,981
Sanoma Oyj		1,909		21,890
Scripps Networks Interactive, Inc.—Class A		3,150		133,623
SES S.A.		7,235		173,962
Singapore Press Holdings, Ltd.		36,000		102,488
Societe Television Francaise S.A.		2,752		26,809
Time Warner Cable, Inc.		10,335		656,996
Time Warner, Inc.		32,385		1,170,394
Toho Co., Ltd.		2,700		48,081
Viacom, Inc.—Class B		17,920		813,747
Walt Disney Co. (The)		58,170		2,181,375
Washington Post Co. (The)—Class B		153		57,652
Wolters Kluwer N.V.		7,289		125,779
WPP plc		29,671		309,972
				14,301,376
Metals & Mining—0.7%
Acerinox S.A.		2,338		29,905
Alcoa, Inc.		34,470		298,165
Allegheny Technologies, Inc.		3,405		162,759
Alumina, Ltd.		57,209		65,219
Anglo American plc		31,356		1,156,062
Antofagasta plc		9,245		173,154
ArcelorMittal		20,424		373,484
BHP Billiton plc		50,010		1,454,610
BHP Billiton, Ltd.		76,043		2,689,984
Boliden AB		6,413		93,086
Cliffs Natural Resources, Inc.		4,625		288,369
Daido Steel Co., Ltd.		6,000		37,588
Eurasian Natural Resources Corp. plc		6,038		59,213
Fortescue Metals Group, Ltd.		29,198		128,197
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc.		30,660		1,127,981
Fresnillo plc		4,204		99,521
Glencore International plc		19,476		118,302
Hitachi Metals, Ltd.		4,000		43,425
Iluka Resources, Ltd.		9,817		155,436
JFE Holdings, Inc.		10,900		198,086
Kazakhmys plc		5,020		71,737
Kobe Steel, Ltd.		59,000		91,049

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Metals & Mining—(Continued)
Lonmin plc		3,798	$	57,470
Lynas Corp., Ltd.*		39,916		42,800
Maruichi Steel Tube, Ltd.		1,100		24,507
Mitsubishi Materials Corp.		26,000		70,456
Newcrest Mining, Ltd.		18,091		549,206
Newmont Mining Corp.		16,065		964,061
Nippon Steel Corp.		120,000		298,780
Nisshin Steel Co., Ltd.		16,000		24,478
Norsk Hydro ASA		21,828		101,219
Nucor Corp.		10,270		406,384
OneSteel, Ltd.		31,371		22,527
OZ Minerals, Ltd.		7,593		77,685
Randgold Resources, Ltd.		2,187		223,558
Rio Tinto plc		33,124		1,603,587
Rio Tinto, Ltd.		10,371		643,282
Salzgitter AG		916		45,896
Sims Metal Management, Ltd.		3,852		50,051
SSAB AB—A Shares		3,669		32,146
Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd.		79,000		143,426
Sumitomo Metal Mining Co., Ltd.		12,000		153,887
ThyssenKrupp AG		9,257		212,378
Titanium Metals Corp.		2,600		38,948
United States Steel Corp.		4,575		121,055
Vedanta Resources plc		2,804		43,891
Voestalpine AG		2,576		72,644
Xstrata plc		49,308		742,786
Yamato Kogyo Co., Ltd.		1,000		28,665
				15,711,105
Multi-Utilities—0.4%
A2A S.p.A.		25,707		24,140
AGL Energy, Ltd.		10,816		158,712
Ameren Corp.		7,830		259,408
CenterPoint Energy, Inc.		13,730		275,836
Centrica plc		122,453		549,776
CMS Energy Corp.		8,085		178,517
Consolidated Edison, Inc.		9,505		589,595
Dominion Resources, Inc.		18,460		979,857
DTE Energy Co.		5,440		296,208
GDF Suez		29,410		801,661
Integrys Energy Group, Inc.		2,490		134,908
National Grid plc		84,275		817,936
NiSource, Inc.		9,050		215,480
PG&E Corp.		13,165		542,661
Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc.		16,370		540,374
Multi-Utilities—(Continued)
RWE AG		9,944	$	349,142
SCANA Corp.		3,710		167,173
Sempra Energy		7,780		427,900
TECO Energy, Inc.		6,965		133,310
Veolia Environnement S.A.		8,612		95,054
Wisconsin Energy Corp.		7,425		259,578
Xcel Energy, Inc.		15,710		434,224
				8,231,450
Multiline Retail—0.2%
Big Lots, Inc.*		2,090		78,918
Dollar Tree, Inc.*		3,870		321,636
Family Dollar Stores, Inc.		3,840		221,414
Harvey Norman Holdings, Ltd.		12,452		23,378
Isetan Mitsukoshi Holdings, Ltd.		8,900		93,180
J Front Retailing Co., Ltd.		11,000		53,075
JC Penney Co., Inc.		4,575		160,811
Kohl’s Corp.		8,185		403,930
Lifestyle International Holdings, Ltd.		13,500		29,662
Macy’s, Inc.		13,530		435,395
Marks & Spencer Group plc		37,161		179,336
Marui Group Corp., Ltd.		5,200		40,469
Next plc		4,074		173,106
Nordstrom, Inc.		5,250		260,977
PPR		1,821		261,011
Sears Holdings Corp.*		1,215		38,613
Takashimaya Co., Ltd.		6,000		43,361
Target Corp.		21,740		1,113,523
				3,931,795
Office Electronics—0.1%
Brother Industries, Ltd.		5,600		68,635
Canon, Inc.		26,900		1,189,986
Konica Minolta Holdings, Inc.		11,000		81,889
Neopost S.A.		828		55,752
Ricoh Co., Ltd.		16,000		139,260
Xerox Corp.		44,900		357,404
				1,892,926
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—2.6%
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc.*		7,121		145,482
Anadarko Petroleum Corp.		16,165		1,233,874
Apache Corp.		12,455		1,128,174
BG Group plc		80,266		1,712,465
BP plc		448,538		3,199,771
Cabot Oil & Gas Corp.		3,405		258,440

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—(Continued)
Cairn Energy plc*		32,841	$	135,060
Caltex Australia, Ltd.		3,165		38,115
Chesapeake Energy Corp.		21,355		476,003
Chevron Corp. (a)		64,580		6,871,312
ConocoPhillips		43,020		3,134,867
CONSOL Energy, Inc.		7,320		268,644
Cosmo Oil Co., Ltd.		14,000		39,055
Denbury Resources, Inc.*		12,865		194,262
Devon Energy Corp.		13,080		810,960
El Paso Corp.		24,960		663,187
ENI S.p.A.		56,977		1,179,528
EOG Resources, Inc.		8,745		861,470
EQT Corp.		4,880		267,375
Essar Energy plc*		7,639		20,202
Exxon Mobil Corp. (a)		155,468		13,177,468
Galp Energia SGPS S.A.—B Shares		5,424		79,992
Hess Corp.		9,610		545,848
Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd.		600		61,774
Inpex Corp.		52		326,921
Japan Petroleum Exploration Co.		700		27,332
JX Holdings, Inc.		53,000		319,642
Lundin Petroleum AB*		5,270		129,422
Marathon Oil Corp.		22,730		665,307
Marathon Petroleum Corp.		11,565		384,999
Murphy Oil Corp.		6,255		348,654
Neste Oil Oyj		3,006		30,307
Newfield Exploration Co.*		4,270		161,107
Noble Energy, Inc.		5,695		537,551
Occidental Petroleum Corp.		26,335		2,467,589
OMV AG		3,995		121,611
Origin Energy, Ltd.		25,286		344,375
Peabody Energy Corp.		8,745		289,547
Pioneer Natural Resources Co.		4,015		359,262
QEP Resources, Inc.		5,695		166,864
Range Resources Corp.		5,035		311,868
Repsol YPF S.A.		18,783		575,113
Royal Dutch Shell plc—A Shares		85,692		3,151,380
Royal Dutch Shell plc—B Shares		63,650		2,423,135
Santos, Ltd.		22,467		281,269
Showa Shell Sekiyu KK		4,400		29,621
Southwestern Energy Co.*		11,235		358,846
Spectra Energy Corp.		21,050		647,287
Statoil ASA		26,566		681,442
Sunoco, Inc.		3,415		140,083
Tesoro Corp.*		4,575		106,872
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—(Continued)
TonenGeneral Sekiyu KK		7,000	$	76,407
Total S.A.		50,262		2,571,169
Tullow Oil plc		21,403		465,396
Valero Energy Corp.		18,055		380,058
Williams Cos., Inc. (The)		19,065		629,526
Woodside Petroleum, Ltd.		15,033		470,954
				56,484,244
Paper & Forest Products—0.1%
Holmen AB—B Shares		1,239		35,592
International Paper Co.		14,085		416,916
MeadWestvaco Corp.		5,440		162,928
Nippon Paper Group, Inc.		2,400		52,343
OJI Paper Co., Ltd.		20,000		102,525
Stora Enso Oyj—R Shares		13,639		81,432
Svenska Cellulosa AB—B Shares		13,534		200,536
UPM-Kymmene Oyj		12,191		133,918
				1,186,190
Personal Products—0.1%
Avon Products, Inc.		13,930		243,357
Beiersdorf AG		2,456		139,598
Estee Lauder Cos., Inc. (The)—Class A		3,610		405,475
Kao Corp.		12,500		341,181
L’Oreal S.A.		5,693		595,447
Shiseido Co., Ltd.		8,500		156,098
				1,881,156
Pharmaceuticals—1.9%
Abbott Laboratories		50,530		2,841,302
Allergan, Inc.		9,865		865,555
Astellas Pharma, Inc.		10,600		430,586
AstraZeneca plc		31,822		1,474,512
Bayer AG		19,604		1,256,145
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.		54,915		1,935,205
Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.		5,300		87,289
Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd.		16,000		316,837
Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma Co., Ltd.		3,800		43,253
Eisai Co., Ltd.		6,000		248,283
Elan Corp. plc*		11,692		162,582
Eli Lilly & Co.		33,050		1,373,558
Forest Laboratories, Inc.*		8,655		261,900
GlaxoSmithKline plc		120,151		2,740,728
Hisamitsu Pharmaceutical Co., Inc.		1,500		63,482

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Pharmaceuticals—(Continued)
Hospira, Inc.*		5,340	$	162,176
Johnson & Johnson (a)		88,570		5,808,421
Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd.		6,000		73,360
Merck & Co., Inc. (a)		98,805		3,724,948
Merck KGaA		1,568		156,668
Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corp.		5,000		79,051
Mylan, Inc.*		13,785		295,826
Novartis AG		55,260		3,162,525
Novo Nordisk A.S.—Class B		10,086		1,162,932
Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.		2,000		112,173
Orion Oyj—Class B		2,212		43,137
Otsuka Holdings Co., Ltd.		6,073		170,762
Perrigo Co.		3,010		292,873
Pfizer, Inc. (a)		249,145		5,391,498
Roche Holding AG		16,636		2,818,541
Sanofi		27,138		1,990,163
Santen Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.		1,800		74,147
Shionogi & Co., Ltd.		7,100		91,108
Shire plc		13,343		463,281
Taisho Pharmaceutical Holdings Co., Ltd.*		919		70,810
Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.		18,700		821,187
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.		22,319		899,582
Tsumura & Co.		1,400		41,256
UCB S.A.		2,487		104,619
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.*		4,170		251,618
				42,363,879
Professional Services—0.1%
Adecco S.A.*		3,232		134,946
Bureau Veritas S.A.		1,352		98,504
Campbell Brothers, Ltd.		1,599		80,178
Capita Group plc (The)		14,377		140,256
Dun & Bradstreet Corp.		1,625		121,599
Equifax, Inc.		3,915		151,667
Experian plc		23,900		324,649
Intertek Group plc		3,919		123,427
Randstad Holding N.V.		2,805		82,756
Robert Half International, Inc.		4,580		130,347
SGS S.A.		130		215,034
				1,603,363
Real Estate Investment Trusts—4.0%
A & J Mucklow Group plc		3,150		14,287
Acadia Realty Trust		5,600		112,784
Real Estate Investment Trusts—(Continued)
Affine		550	$	8,916
Agree Realty Corp.		1,250		30,475
Alexander’s, Inc.		300		111,009
Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc.		8,150		562,105
Allied Properties Real Estate Investment Trust		6,750		167,812
Alstria Office REIT-AG		9,450		112,389
American Assets Trust, Inc.		5,150		105,627
American Campus Communities, Inc.		9,300		390,228
American Tower Corp.—Class A		12,765		766,028
Apartment Investment & Management Co.—Class A		19,815		453,962
Artis Real Estate Investment Trust		10,950		150,652
Ascendas Real Estate Investment Trust		314,250		444,317
Ashford Hospitality Trust		8,950		71,600
Associated Estates Realty Corp.		5,550		88,523
AvalonBay Communities, Inc.		15,695		2,049,767
Befimmo S.C.A. Sicafi		2,300		149,966
Beni Stabili S.p.A.		126,150		56,559
Big Yellow Group plc		17,200		65,396
BioMed Realty Trust, Inc.		20,250		366,120
Boardwalk Real Estate Investment Trust		6,300		312,506
Boston Properties, Inc.		24,275		2,417,790
Brandywine Realty Trust		17,700		168,150
BRE Properties, Inc.		9,850		497,228
British Land Co. plc		136,310		975,028
BWP Trust		68,450		120,595
Calloway Real Estate Investment Trust		14,100		371,202
Camden Property Trust		9,400		585,056
Campus Crest Communities, Inc.		4,000		40,240
Canadian Apartment Properties		11,150		244,634
Canadian Real Estate Investment Trust		8,800		306,358
Canmarc Real Estate Investment Trust		7,200		113,291
CapitaCommercial Trust		278,200		226,260
Capital Shopping Centres Group plc		97,944		473,375
CapitaMall Trust		379,100		496,874
CapLease, Inc.		8,700		35,148
CBL & Associates Properties, Inc.		19,500		306,150
CDL Hospitality Trusts		94,500		112,665

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Real Estate Investment Trusts—(Continued)
Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc.		8,900	$	38,359
CFS Retail Property Trust		321,872		555,352
Champion		324,700		122,281
Charter Hall Office		65,000		234,034
Charter Hall Retail		39,800		130,419
Chartwell Seniors Housing		19,000		158,824
Chesapeake Lodging Trust		4,200		64,932
Cofinimmo		1,850		217,528
Colonial Properties Trust		11,450		238,847
Cominar Real Estate Investment Trust		9,150		198,234
Commonwealth Property Office Fund		322,650		315,627
CommonWealth REIT		11,000		183,040
Corio N.V.		13,607		590,440
Corporate Office Properties Trust		9,400		199,844
Cousins Properties, Inc.		13,650		87,497
Crombie Real Estate Investment Trust		5,400		74,453
CubeSmart		16,100		171,304
DCT Industrial Trust, Inc.		32,300		165,376
DDR Corp.		36,400		442,988
Derwent London plc		13,400		323,778
Dexus Property Group		750,849		638,994
DiamondRock Hospitality Co.		21,950		211,598
Digital Realty Trust, Inc.		13,850		923,379
Douglas Emmett, Inc.		12,600		229,824
Duke Realty Corp.		33,100		398,855
Dundee Real Estate Investment Trust		8,700		279,519
DuPont Fabros Technology, Inc.		8,200		198,604
EastGroup Properties, Inc.		3,550		154,354
Education Realty Trust, Inc.		12,100		123,783
Entertainment Properties Trust		6,100		266,631
Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc.		5,400		360,126
Equity One, Inc.		7,550		128,199
Equity Residential		48,360		2,757,971
Essex Property Trust, Inc.		4,450		625,269
Eurobank Properties Real Estate Investment Co.		2,450		12,076
Eurocommercial Properties N.V.		1,150		36,475
Extendicare Real Estate Investment Trust		10,500		87,771
Extra Space Storage, Inc.		12,350		299,240
Federal Realty Investment Trust		8,350		757,762
Real Estate Investment Trusts—(Continued)
FelCor Lodging Trust, Inc.*		16,350	$	49,868
First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc.*		11,400		116,622
First Potomac Realty Trust		6,550		85,478
Fonciere Des Regions		4,244		272,179
Franklin Street Properties Corp.		10,900		108,455
Gecina S.A.		3,073		258,700
General Growth Properties, Inc.		61,750		927,485
Getty Realty Corp.		3,250		45,338
Glimcher Realty Trust		14,150		130,180
Goodman Group		1,138,746		664,199
Government Properties Income Trust		4,600		103,730
GPT Group		283,227		890,512
Great Portland Estates plc		41,200		206,101
H&R Real Estate Investment Trust		21,900		500,953
Hammerson plc		109,897		611,936
HCP, Inc.		66,615		2,759,859
Health Care REIT, Inc.		31,395		1,711,969
Healthcare Realty Trust, Inc.		10,250		190,547
Hersha Hospitality Trust		22,250		108,580
Highwoods Properties, Inc.		9,500		281,865
Home Properties, Inc.		6,350		365,569
Hospitality Properties Trust		16,250		373,425
Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc.		115,815		1,710,588
ICADE		3,397		267,472
Immobiliare Grande Distribuzione		15,750		15,104
Inland Real Estate Corp.		11,650		88,657
InnVest Real Estate Investment Trust		12,250		49,754
Intervest Offices		950		22,343
Investa Office Fund		350,050		215,074
Investors Real Estate Trust		10,700		78,057
Japan Prime Realty Investment Corp.		111		261,586
Japan Real Estate Investment Corp.		77		599,900
Japan Retail Fund Investment Corp.		292		432,450
Kenedix Realty Investment Corp.		9		26,168
Kilroy Realty Corp.		7,700		293,139
Kimco Realty Corp.		66,620		1,081,909
Kite Realty Group Trust		8,350		37,659
Kiwi Income Property Trust		128,150		100,982
Klepierre		14,896		424,145
Land Securities Group plc		120,717		1,187,283
LaSalle Hotel Properties		11,000		266,310
Lexington Realty Trust		20,300		152,047
Liberty Property Trust		15,200		469,376

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Real Estate Investment Trusts—(Continued)
Link REIT (The)		349,550	$	1,287,907
London & Stamford Property plc		71,850		120,459
LTC Properties, Inc.		3,950		121,897
Macerich Co. (The)		17,350		877,910
Mack-Cali Realty Corp.		11,400		304,266
Mapletree Industrial Trust		160,850		133,408
Mapletree Logistics Trust		239,650		156,472
Medical Properties Trust, Inc.		14,600		144,102
Mercialys		6,050		195,331
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc.		5,000		312,750
Mirvac Group		530,058		640,826
Morguard Real Estate Investment Trust		5,600		88,115
Mori Trust Sogo REIT, Inc.		54		440,354
National Health Investors, Inc.		3,650		160,527
National Retail Properties, Inc.		13,750		362,725
Nieuwe Steen Investments N.V.		7,943		97,251
Nippon Accommodations Fund, Inc.		55		369,967
Nippon Building Fund, Inc.		90		736,254
Nomura Real Estate Office Fund, Inc.		47		241,348
Northern Property Real Estate Investment Trust		3,900		113,987
NorthWest Healthcare Properties Real Estate Investment Trust		4,600		51,978
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc.		13,550		262,192
Orix JREIT, Inc.		7		28,856
Parkway Properties, Inc.		2,850		28,101
Pebblebrook Hotel Trust		6,700		128,506
Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust		7,250		75,690
Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc.		22,700		386,808
Plum Creek Timber Co, Inc.		5,235		191,392
Post Properties, Inc.		6,850		299,482
Premier Investment Corp.		4		12,995
Primaris Retail Real Estate Investment Trust		10,550		213,832
Primary Health Properties plc		8,950		44,223
Prologis, Inc.		75,280		2,152,255
PS Business Parks, Inc.		2,400		133,032
Public Storage		21,525		2,894,251
Ramco-Gershenson Properties Trust		5,100		50,133
Realty Income Corp.		17,550		613,548
Real Estate Investment Trusts—(Continued)
Regency Centers Corp.		11,850	$	445,797
Retail Opportunity Investments Corp.		6,400		75,776
RioCan Real Estate Investment Trust		35,950		934,414
RLJ Lodging Trust		14,000		235,620
Saul Centers, Inc.		1,900		67,298
Segro plc		115,038		372,190
Senior Housing Properties Trust		21,400		480,216
Shaftesbury plc		32,950		238,884
Simon Property Group, Inc.		48,110		6,203,303
SL Green Realty Corp.		11,250		749,700
Societe de la Tour Eiffel		750		37,357
Societe Immobiliere de Location pour l’Industrie et le Commerce		1,700		165,162
Sovran Self Storage, Inc.		3,650		155,746
Stockland		364,319		1,189,715
Strategic Hotels & Resorts, Inc.*		24,450		131,297
Sun Communities, Inc.		2,800		102,284
Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc.*		15,500		126,325
Suntec Real Estate Investment Trust		289,750		240,157
Tanger Factory Outlet Centers, Inc.		11,300		331,316
Taubman Centers, Inc.		7,650		475,065
Tokyu REIT, Inc.		4		20,102
Top REIT, Inc.		5		22,456
Transglobe Apartment Real Estate Investment Trust		7,600		87,372
UDR, Inc.		28,850		724,135
Unibail-Rodamco		14,231		2,552,699
United Urban Investment Corp.		261		295,796
Universal Health Realty Income Trust		1,650		64,350
Urstadt Biddle Properties—Class A		2,700		48,816
VastNed Retail N.V.		2,450		109,904
Ventas, Inc.		47,192		2,601,695
Vornado Realty Trust		30,340		2,331,932
Warehouses De Pauw SCA		1,350		64,892
Washington Real Estate Investment Trust		8,650		236,577
Weingarten Realty Investors		15,900		346,938
Wereldhave Belgium		300		26,034
Wereldhave N.V.		2,900		192,329
Westfield Group		356,015		2,851,143
Westfield Retail Trust		470,323		1,199,002
Weyerhaeuser Co.		17,340		323,738
Whiterock Real Estate Investment Trust		4,700		61,197

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Real Estate Investment Trusts—(Continued)
Winthrop Realty Trust		3,200	$	32,544
Workspace Group plc		18,900		66,164
				87,118,779
Real Estate Management & Development—1.3%
Aeon Mall Co., Ltd.		13,550		287,109
Agile Property Holdings, Ltd.		182,950		163,362
Allreal Holding AG*		900		131,016
Azrieli Group		4,550		107,478
Brookfield Office Properties, Inc.		49,450		776,630
CA Immobilien Anlagen AG*		11,600		125,002
Capital & Counties Properties plc		90,050		257,925
CapitaLand, Ltd.		477,300		812,345
CapitaMalls Asia, Ltd.		236,388		205,837
Castellum A.B.		22,650		280,281
CBRE Group, Inc*		10,455		159,125
Cheung Kong Holdings, Ltd.		33,000		391,635
China Overseas Land & Investment, Ltd.		537,750		901,628
China Resources Land, Ltd.		306,950		493,181
City Developments, Ltd.		101,450		695,703
Citycon Oyj		27,450		82,052
CLS Holdings plc*		2,950		27,039
Colonia Real Estate AG*		2,150		8,354
Conwert Immobilien Invest SE		10,700		118,947
Country Garden Holdings Co.		439,900		164,464
Daejan Holdings plc		650		28,002
Daito Trust Construction Co., Ltd.		1,800		154,401
Daiwa House Industry Co., Ltd.		11,000		131,034
Deutsche Euroshop AG		6,800		218,748
Deutsche Wohnen AG		13,500		179,751
Development Securities plc		16,100		37,509
DIC Asset AG		4,500		31,285
Fabege AB		21,750		170,417
First Capital Realty, Inc.		9,000		153,120
FKP Property Group		118,350		58,154
Forest City Enterprises, Inc.*		19,750		233,445
GAGFAH S.A.		11,850		61,084
Global Logistic Properties, Ltd.		285,168		385,616
Grainger plc		40,950		67,941
GSW Immobilien AG		4,100		118,943
Hang Lung Group, Ltd.		20,000		108,840
Hang Lung Properties, Ltd.		351,550		999,457
Hansteen Holdings plc		84,150		99,921
Helical Bar plc		15,550		44,840
Real Estate Management & Development—(Continued)
Henderson Land Development Co., Ltd.		176,450	$	873,605
Hongkong Land Holdings, Ltd.		229,600		1,039,385
Hopewell Holdings, Ltd.		13,000		33,179
Hopson Development Holdings, Ltd.		92,300		47,898
Hufvudstaden A.B.—A Shares		20,050		204,165
Hysan Development Co., Ltd.		118,400		387,813
IMMOFINANZ AG*		22,033		66,511
Inmobiliaria Colonial S.A.*		4,500		13,354
Invista Foundation Property Trust, Ltd.		46,850		24,190
IVG Immobilien AG*		20,500		55,839
Keppel Land, Ltd.		115,200		196,882
Kerry Properties, Ltd.		110,800		366,246
Killam Properties, Inc.		6,400		72,821
Klovern AB		16,450		61,761
Kungsleden AB		17,950		119,751
Lend Lease Group		12,716		93,155
Mitsubishi Estate Co., Ltd.		166,650		2,485,762
Mitsui Fudosan Co., Ltd.		136,050		1,979,512
Mobimo Holding AG*		850		188,337
New World China Land, Ltd.		341,450		68,322
New World Development, Ltd.		673,100		540,293
Nomura Real Estate Holdings, Inc.		12,250		182,070
Norwegian Property ASA		65,700		80,888
NTT Urban Development Corp.		201		136,884
Patrizia Immobilien AG*		3,400		15,114
Prime Office REIT-AG*		5,100		28,750
PSP Swiss Property AG		6,100		510,451
Quintain Estates & Development plc*		68,150		39,882
Safestore Holdings plc		24,600		38,123
Shenzhen Investment, Ltd.		348,500		62,201
Shimao Property Holdings, Ltd.		186,450		158,073
Shui On Land, Ltd.		343,250		104,086
Sino Land Co., Ltd.		424,350		603,787
Soho China, Ltd.		273,300		182,564
Sponda Oyj		37,300		150,428
St. Modwen Properties plc		19,750		34,595
Sumitomo Realty & Development Co., Ltd.		71,550		1,250,757
Sun Hung Kai Properties, Ltd.		286,800		3,579,619
Swire Pacific, Ltd.—Class A		17,000		204,798
Swiss Prime Site AG		5,350		402,418
TAG Immobilien AG*		9,850		78,558

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Real Estate Management & Development—(Continued)
Technopolis Oyj		8,350	$	36,270
Tokyo Tatemono Co., Ltd.		42,200		127,504
Tokyu Land Corp.		62,300		235,134
Unite Group plc		20,950		54,506
UOL Group, Ltd.		10,000		30,819
Wallenstam AB—B Shares		15,800		145,858
Wharf Holdings, Ltd.		234,100		1,059,167
Wheelock & Co., Ltd.		21,000		51,962
Wihlborgs Fastigheter AB		10,150		133,987
Wing Tai Holdings, Ltd.		78,350		57,219
Yanlord Land Group, Ltd.		77,000		56,607
Zueblin Immobilien Holding AG*		5,900		15,080
				28,238,561
Road & Rail—0.3%
Asciano, Ltd.		22,867		105,529
Central Japan Railway Co.		36		303,759
ComfortDelGro Corp., Ltd.		44,000		48,015
CSX Corp.		34,000		716,040
DSV A.S.		4,783		85,700
East Japan Railway Co.		8,100		515,280
Keikyu Corp.		11,000		98,677
Keio Corp.		13,000		91,621
Keisei Electric Railway Co., Ltd.		6,000		44,079
Kintetsu Corp.		38,000		148,485
MTR Corp.		34,000		110,036
Nippon Express Co., Ltd.		20,000		77,863
Norfolk Southern Corp.		10,890		793,445
Odakyu Electric Railway Co., Ltd.		15,000		144,870
QR National, Ltd.		40,043		140,169
Ryder System, Inc.		1,630		86,618
Tobu Railway Co., Ltd.		24,000		122,462
Tokyu Corp.		26,000		127,909
Union Pacific Corp.		15,665		1,659,550
West Japan Railway Co.		4,026		174,868
				5,594,975
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—0.5%
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.*		18,960		102,384
Advantest Corp.		3,500		33,249
Altera Corp.		10,370		384,727
Analog Devices, Inc.		9,610		343,846
Applied Materials, Inc.		42,260		452,605
ARM Holdings plc		31,560		291,053
ASM Pacific Technology, Ltd.		4,700		52,711
ASML Holding N.V.		10,246		430,363
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—(Continued)
Broadcom Corp.—Class A*		15,705	$	461,099
Elpida Memory, Inc.*		6,100		28,309
First Solar, Inc.*		1,880		63,469
Infineon Technologies AG		25,478		192,195
Intel Corp. (a)		165,070		4,002,947
KLA-Tencor Corp.		5,440		262,480
Linear Technology Corp.		7,320		219,820
LSI Corp.*		18,180		108,171
Microchip Technology, Inc.		6,200		227,106
Micron Technology, Inc.*		32,010		201,343
Novellus Systems, Inc.*		2,150		88,773
NVIDIA Corp.*		19,760		273,874
Rohm Co., Ltd.		2,300		107,090
STMicroelectronics N.V.		14,940		88,435
Sumco Corp.*		2,700		19,901
Teradyne, Inc.*		5,900		80,417
Texas Instruments, Inc.		36,980		1,076,488
Tokyo Electron, Ltd.		4,100		208,248
Xilinx, Inc.		8,490		272,189
				10,073,292
Software—0.7%
Adobe Systems, Inc.*		15,870		448,645
Autodesk, Inc.*		7,325		222,167
BMC Software, Inc.*		5,495		180,126
CA, Inc.		11,905		240,660
Citrix Systems, Inc.*		6,000		364,320
Dassault Systemes S.A.		1,481		118,849
Electronic Arts, Inc.*		10,680		220,008
Intuit, Inc.		9,645		507,231
Konami Corp.		2,200		65,790
Microsoft Corp. (a)		242,675		6,299,843
NICE Systems, Ltd.*		1,418		48,223
Nintendo Co., Ltd.		2,400		330,771
Oracle Corp. (a)		127,490		3,270,118
Oracle Corp. Japan		900		29,761
Red Hat, Inc.*		6,205		256,204
Sage Group plc (The)		31,006		141,540
Salesforce.com, Inc.*		4,415		447,946
SAP AG		21,809		1,155,697
Square Enix Holdings Co., Ltd.		1,500		29,406
Symantec Corp.*		23,860		373,409
Trend Micro, Inc.*		2,500		74,622
				14,825,336

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Specialty Retail—0.4%
ABC-Mart, Inc.		700	$	26,595
Abercrombie & Fitch Co.—Class A		2,755		134,554
AutoNation, Inc.*		1,555		57,333
AutoZone, Inc.*		975		316,846
Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.*		7,805		452,456
Best Buy Co., Inc.		9,465		221,197
CarMax, Inc.*		7,300		222,504
Fast Retailing Co., Ltd.		1,300		236,184
GameStop Corp.—Class A*		4,475		107,982
Gap, Inc. (The)		11,220		208,131
Hennes & Mauritz AB—B Shares		24,301		780,464
Home Depot, Inc. (The)		49,980		2,101,159
Inditex S.A.		5,177		423,924
Kingfisher plc		55,422		215,543
Limited Brands, Inc.		7,910		319,168
Lowe’s Cos., Inc.		40,570		1,029,667
Nitori Holdings Co., Ltd.		900		84,360
O’Reilly Automotive, Inc.*		4,175		333,791
Orchard Supply Hardware Stores Corp.—Class A*		36		0
Ross Stores, Inc.		7,470		355,049
Sanrio Co. Ltd.		1,100		56,455
Shimamura Co., Ltd.		600		61,362
Staples, Inc.		22,645		314,539
Tiffany & Co.		4,140		274,316
TJX Cos, Inc. (The)		12,185		786,542
Urban Outfitters, Inc.*		3,540		97,562
USS Co., Ltd.		520		46,983
Yamada Denki Co., Ltd.		1,950		132,459
				9,397,125
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—0.2%
Adidas AG		4,981		324,709
Asics Corp.		3,000		33,797
Burberry Group plc		10,463		191,543
Christian Dior S.A.		1,320		156,365
Coach, Inc.		9,510		580,490
Compagnie Financiere Richemont S.A.—Class A		12,430		627,018
Luxottica Group S.p.A.		2,736		76,735
LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton S.A.		6,017		849,626
NIKE, Inc.—Class B		12,055		1,161,740
Ralph Lauren Corp.		2,085		287,897
Swatch Group AG (The)		1,761		343,517
VF Corp.		2,845		361,287
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—(Continued)
Yue Yuen Industrial Holdings, Ltd.		17,500	$	55,286
				5,050,010
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance—0.0%
Hudson City Bancorp., Inc.		17,035		106,469
People’s United Financial, Inc.		11,645		149,638
				256,107
Tobacco—0.5%
Altria Group, Inc.		66,575		1,973,949
British American Tobacco plc		46,810		2,220,309
Imperial Tobacco Group plc		24,051		909,446
Japan Tobacco, Inc.		107		502,805
Lorillard, Inc.		4,430		505,020
Philip Morris International, Inc. (a)		56,315		4,419,601
Reynolds American, Inc.		10,930		452,721
Swedish Match AB		5,153		183,052
				11,166,903
Trading Companies & Distributors—0.2%
Brenntag AG		839		78,116
Bunzl plc		7,745		106,015
Fastenal Co.		9,510		414,731
ITOCHU Corp.		35,000		354,807
Marubeni Corp.		39,000		237,127
Mitsubishi Corp.		33,300		671,321
Mitsui & Co., Ltd.		41,200		639,387
Noble Group, Ltd.		91,000		79,081
Sojitz Corp.		29,600		45,685
Sumitomo Corp.		26,600		359,362
Toyota Tsusho Corp.		5,000		88,249
W.W. Grainger, Inc.		1,980		370,636
Wolseley plc		6,857		226,087
				3,670,604
Transportation Infrastructure—0.0%
Abertis Infraestructuras S.A.		9,097		145,072
Aeroports de Paris		883		60,484
Atlantia S.p.A.		7,389		118,137
Auckland International Airport, Ltd.		21,705		42,679
Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide		862		42,486
Groupe Eurotunnel S.A.		12,381		84,127
Hutchison Port Holdings Trust		122,502		75,850
Kamigumi Co., Ltd.		6,000		51,709
Koninklijke Vopak N.V.		1,654		87,336
Mitsubishi Logistics Corp.		3,000		33,271

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

25

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares/Par Amount($)†		Value
Transportation Infrastructure—(Continued)
Sydney Airport		8,727	$	23,772
Transurban Group		30,459		175,303
				940,226
Water Utilities—0.0%
Severn Trent plc		5,568		129,136
United Utilities Group plc		15,982		150,380
				279,516
Wireless Telecommunication Services—0.3%
Cellcom Israel, Ltd.		1,283		21,459
KDDI Corp.		70		450,503
MetroPCS Communications, Inc.*		9,490		82,373
Millicom International Cellular S.A.		1,841		184,517
Mobistar S.A.		704		36,853
NTT DoCoMo, Inc.		362		664,925
Partner Communications Co., Ltd.		2,007		17,734
SOFTBANK Corp.		21,000		617,690
Sprint Nextel Corp.*		97,055		227,109
StarHub, Ltd.		14,000		31,480
Vodafone Group plc		1,203,582		3,342,761
				5,677,404
Total Common Stocks (Cost $685,269,975)				692,872,239
U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—24.2%
Federal Agencies—1.6%
Federal Home Loan Banks 0.875%, 08/22/12		10,000		10,042
1.750%, 12/14/12		10,000		10,138
2.500%, 06/13/14		4,725,000		4,950,321
4.750%, 12/16/16		1,785,000		2,099,635
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 5.000%, 07/15/14		7,710,000		8,567,845
4.375%, 07/17/15		4,305,000		4,843,349
Federal National Mortgage Association 4.750%, 02/21/13		10,000		10,506
1.750%, 05/07/13		50,000		50,955
3.875%, 07/12/13		799,000		842,911
4.625%, 10/15/13		10,000		10,759
2.750%, 03/13/14		4,560,000		4,780,827
2.375%, 04/11/16		966,000		1,021,670
5.250%, 09/15/16		5,445,000		6,470,560
Federal Agencies—(Continued)
5.375%, 06/12/17		756,000	$	914,522
7.250%, 05/15/30		541,000		847,406
				35,431,446
U.S. Treasury—22.6%
U.S. Treasury Bonds 6.250%, 08/15/23		4,620,000		6,613,096
6.000%, 02/15/26		7,077,000		10,200,830
5.375%, 02/15/31		11,020,000		15,708,668
3.500%, 02/15/39		5,264,000		5,922,000
4.375%, 11/15/39		8,320,000		10,803,004
4.375%, 05/15/40		6,650,000		8,639,806
4.375%, 05/15/41		7,495,000		9,766,922
3.750%, 08/15/41		5,055,000		5,945,944
3.125%, 11/15/41		6,615,000		6,931,283
U.S. Treasury Notes 0.625%, 06/30/12		4,860,000		4,874,240
4.625%, 07/31/12		1,190,000		1,221,330
4.000%, 11/15/12		7,918,300		8,183,381
0.625%, 01/31/13		4,595,000		4,618,154
3.625%, 05/15/13		18,373,900		19,229,444
1.125%, 06/15/13		31,755,000		32,178,008
0.750%, 08/15/13		23,053,000		23,248,420
0.250%, 11/30/13		44,626,600		45,757,305
1.000%, 01/15/14		7,660,000		7,774,302
2.625%, 07/31/14		12,915,000		13,674,764
0.250%, 09/15/14		8,470,000		8,450,146
0.375%, 11/15/14		7,800,000		7,806,092
2.125%, 12/31/15		15,450,000		16,389,066
2.000%, 01/31/16		9,780,000		10,319,426
2.000%, 04/30/16		21,417,000		22,618,365
7.250%, 05/15/16		13,085,000		16,782,533
3.250%, 07/31/16		18,515,000		20,590,717
1.000%, 09/30/16		17,635,000		17,819,621
3.125%, 10/31/16		28,880,000		32,027,487
0.875%, 11/30/16		12,297,000		12,336,387
2.375%, 07/31/17		4,670,100		5,019,993
2.250%, 11/30/17		7,125,000		7,602,596
2.625%, 01/31/18		8,315,000		9,057,505
2.750%, 02/15/19		6,836,000		8,396,475
2.625%, 11/15/20		15,004,000		16,155,092
3.625%, 02/15/21		16,280,000		18,903,880
2.125%, 08/15/21		11,970,000		12,278,599
2.000%, 11/15/21		10,780,000		10,904,649
				494,749,530
Total U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies (Cost $521,270,246)				530,180,976

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

26

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—4.9%

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Sovereign—4.9%
Australia Government Bond 6.000%, 02/15/17 (AUD)		230,000	$	265,556
5.250%, 03/15/19 (AUD)		510,000		580,806
5.750%, 05/15/21 (AUD)		100,000		119,298
Bundesrepublik Deutschland 3.750%, 07/04/13 (EUR)		1,375,000		1,882,022
4.250%, 01/04/14 (EUR)		3,900,000		5,472,225
3.500%, 01/04/16 (EUR)		910,000		1,318,821
4.000%, 07/04/16 (EUR)		4,840,000		7,196,210
3.000%, 07/04/20 (EUR)		1,160,000		1,667,803
2.500%, 01/04/21 (EUR)		2,715,000		3,760,294
5.500%, 01/04/31 (EUR)		1,120,000		2,107,087
4.750%, 07/04/34 (EUR)		150,000		269,966
4.250%, 07/04/39 (EUR)		965,000		1,709,695
Canadian Government Bond 3.500%, 06/01/13 (CAD)		455,000		463,305
4.000%, 06/01/16 (CAD)		735,000		808,113
3.500%, 06/01/20 (CAD)		420,000		466,182
5.750%, 06/01/29 (CAD)		385,000		558,817
4.000%, 06/01/41 (CAD)		180,000		232,424
Denmark Government Bond 4.000%, 11/15/15 (DKK)		500,000		99,384
4.000%, 11/15/19 (DKK)		265,000		55,392
4.500%, 11/15/39 (DKK)		295,000		77,183
France Government Bond OAT 4.000%, 04/25/13 (EUR)		1,765,000		2,399,868
3.250%, 04/25/16 (EUR)		1,475,000		2,020,010
3.750%, 04/25/21 (EUR)		1,690,000		2,294,898
5.500%, 04/25/29 (EUR)		835,000		1,341,275
4.500%, 04/25/41 (EUR)		310,000		460,832
Italy Buoni Poliennali Del Tesoro 3.750%, 12/15/13 (EUR)		896,000		1,138,196
3.750%, 04/15/16 (EUR)		1,525,000		1,833,477
3.750%, 03/01/21 (EUR)		2,105,000		2,253,575
5.250%, 11/01/29 (EUR)		1,190,000		1,285,735
5.000%, 08/01/39 (EUR)		235,000		242,220
Japan Government Ten Year Bond 1.000%, 06/20/13 (JPY)		483,600,000		6,361,083
1.900%, 06/20/16 (JPY)		1,140,000,000		15,841,661
Japan Government Thirty Year Bond 2.300%, 03/20/40 (JPY)		227,700,000		3,223,719
Japan Government Twenty Year Bond 2.500%, 12/21/20 (JPY)		852,300,000		12,624,867
2.100%, 06/20/29 (JPY)		683,450,000		9,486,311
Sovereign—(Continued)
Mexican Bonos 7.250%, 12/15/16 (MXN)		2,120,000	$	162,931
6.500%, 06/10/21 (MXN)		11,665,000		838,919
Poland Government Bond 5.500%, 10/25/19 (PLN)		555,000		159,521
South Africa Government Bond 8.250%, 09/15/17 (ZAR)		1,220,000		157,062
Spain Government Bond 2.500%, 10/31/13 (EUR)		665,000		851,358
3.150%, 01/31/16 (EUR)		620,000		778,899
4.000%, 04/30/20 (EUR)		1,100,000		1,354,294
6.000%, 01/31/29 (EUR)		190,000		251,831
4.200%, 01/31/37 (EUR)		225,000		232,691
Sweden Government Bond Series 1047 5.000%, 12/01/20 (SEK)		565,000		105,818
Series 1049 4.500%, 08/12/15 (SEK)		660,000		108,170
United Kingdom Gilt 4.500%, 03/07/13 (GBP)		1,235,000		2,013,277
4.000%, 09/07/16 (GBP)		1,170,000		2,078,936
3.750%, 09/07/20 (GBP)		1,215,000		2,185,670
4.750%, 12/07/30 (GBP)		560,000		1,129,114
4.250%, 09/07/39 (GBP)		1,525,000		2,920,336
Total Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities (Cost $109,595,603)				107,247,137
Investment Company Securities—7.3%
F&C Commercial Property Trust, Ltd.		67,200		105,953
IRP Property Investments, Ltd.		14,550		15,555
iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund		813,290		59,931,340
Picton Property Income, Ltd.		45,350		26,218
SPDR S&P MidCap 400 ETF Trust		376,920		60,133,817
Standard Life Investment Property Income Trust plc		17,950		14,424
UK Commercial Property Trust		47,300		50,800
Vanguard MSCI Emerging Markets ETF		1,074,940		41,073,457
Total Investment Company Securities (Cost $158,956,937)				161,351,564

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

27

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Preferred Stocks—0.1%

Security Description	Shares		Value
Automobiles—0.1%
Bayerische Motoren Werke (BMW) AG		1,224	$	58,028
Porsche Automobil Holding SE		3,681		197,431
Volkswagen AG		3,452		517,365
				772,824
Household Products—0.0%
Henkel AG & Co. KGaA		4,266		246,737
Media—0.0%
ProSiebenSat.1 Media AG		1,796		32,881
Multi-Utilities—0.0%
RWE AG		915		30,186
Specialty Retail—0.0%
Orchard Supply Hardware Stores Corp.*		36		0
Total Preferred Stocks (Cost $1,139,556)				1,082,628
Purchased Options—0.0%
Euro Stoxx 50 Index, Expires 03/16/12		4,090		33,424
S&P 500 Index, Expires 02/18/12		394,500		78,900
S&P 500 Index, Expires 01/21/12		69,800		10,470
S&P 500 Index, Expires 03/17/12		234,200		268,285
Total Purchased Options (Cost $2,666,378)				391,079
Warrants—0.0%
Real Estate Investment Trusts—0.0%
Nieuwe Steen Investments N.V., expires 04/01/13*		550		0
Total Warrants (Cost $—)				0

Short-Term Investments—39.9%

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Repurchase Agreements—39.9%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $872,182,969 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $5,220,000 Federal Home Loan Bank at 0.220% due 10/26/12 with a value of $5,220,000; by $2,090,000 Federal Home Loan Bank at 0.125% due 10/25/12 with a value of $2,088,955; by $86,000,000 Federal Home Loan Bank at 0.160% due 10/09/12 with a value of $86,000,000; by $205,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. at 4.625% due 10/25/12 with a value of $213,969; by $1,585,000 Federal National Mortgage Association at 0.500% due 10/30/12 with a value of $1,588,963; by $985,000 Federal National Mortgage Association at 4.377% due 01/23/18 with a value of $1,158,606; by $279,990,000 U.S. Treasury Notes at 4.250% due 09/30/12 with a value of $291,485,003; by $500,000,000 U.S. Treasury Notes at 0.375% due 09/30/12 with a value of $501,875,000.		872,182,000	$	872,182,000
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $872,182,000)				872,182,000
Total Investments—108.1% (Cost $2,351,080,695#)				2,365,307,623
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(8.1)%				(176,571,779	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	2,188,735,844

† Par amount stated in U.S. dollar unless otherwise noted.

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $2,359,149,493. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $36,816,066 and $(30,657,936), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $6,158,130 for federal income tax purposes.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

28

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

(a) All or a portion of the security was pledged as collateral against open future contracts. At the period end, the value of the securities pledged amounted to $39,344,610.

(b) Affiliated issuer. (See Note 9 to Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in the investments of affiliated issuers.)

(144A)— Securities exempt from registration under Rule 144A of the Securities Act of 1933. These securities may be resold in transactions exempt from registration, normally to qualified institutional buyers. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of 144A securities was $261,938, which is 0.0% of net assets.

(AUD)— Australian Dollar

(CAD)— Canadian Dollar

(DKK)— Danish Krone

(EUR)— Euro

(GBP)— British Pound

(JPY)— Japanese Yen

(MXN)— Mexican Peso

(PLN)— Polish Zloty

(SEK)— Swedish Krona

(ZAR)— South African Rand

Countries  Diversification as of December 31, 2011 (Unaudited)
	% of Net Assets
United States		90.1
Japan		4.8
United Kingdom		3.0
Germany		2.0
France		1.4
Australia		1.3
Switzerland		1.0
Hong Kong		0.7
Italy		0.5
Spain		0.5

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

29

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Common Stocks
Aerospace & Defense	$	9,710,850	$	1,664,526	$	—	$	11,375,376
Air Freight & Logistics		3,800,846		599,093		—		4,399,939
Airlines		215,926		345,073		—		560,999
Auto Components		1,026,692		1,805,697		—		2,832,389
Automobiles		1,617,430		6,456,606		—		8,074,036
Beverages		9,911,984		4,964,062		—		14,876,046
Biotechnology		4,485,955		553,643		—		5,039,598
Building Products		120,992		1,308,481		—		1,429,473
Capital Markets		6,664,192		3,873,431		—		10,537,623
Chemicals		8,274,851		8,141,653		—		16,416,504
Commercial Banks		9,822,849		24,990,123		—		34,812,972
Commercial Services & Supplies		1,589,669		1,518,005		—		3,107,674
Communications Equipment		7,730,002		1,233,293		—		8,963,295
Computers & Peripherals		17,162,549		780,598		—		17,943,147
Construction & Engineering		589,032		1,705,867		—		2,294,899
Construction Materials		162,122		1,241,624		—		1,403,746
Consumer Finance		2,819,193		100,020		—		2,919,213
Containers & Packaging		492,316		373,996		—		866,312
Distributors		306,918		357,930		—		664,848
Diversified Consumer Services		426,371		77,405		—		503,776
Diversified Financial Services		9,913,011		2,458,401		—		12,371,412
Diversified Telecommunication Services		10,622,897		8,230,345		—		18,853,242
Electric Utilities		7,710,255		5,403,008		—		13,113,263
Electrical Equipment		1,996,878		3,084,845		—		5,081,723
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components		1,676,116		2,648,529		—		4,324,645
Energy Equipment & Services		7,284,962		2,052,640		—		9,337,602
Food & Staples Retailing		8,901,628		5,330,812		—		14,232,440
Food Products		7,120,507		9,360,893		—		16,481,400
Gas Utilities		445,856		1,141,529		—		1,587,385
Health Care Equipment & Supplies		6,580,289		1,612,348		—		8,192,637
Health Care Providers & Services		7,730,706		961,420		—		8,692,126
Health Care Technology		286,650		—		—		286,650

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

30

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY—(Continued)

Description	Level 1		Level 2			Level 3		Total
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure	$	7,522,759	$	2,218,207		$	—	$	9,740,966
Household Durables		741,981		1,504,979			—		2,246,960
Household Products		8,628,705		1,011,413			—		9,640,118
Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders		639,305		378,778			—		1,018,083
Industrial Conglomerates		9,557,677		3,585,060			—		13,142,737
Insurance		13,193,975		9,538,673			—		22,732,648
Internet & Catalog Retail		3,117,997		184,931			—		3,302,928
Internet Software & Services		7,498,715		301,570			—		7,800,285
IT Services		14,345,673		603,035			—		14,948,708
Leisure Equipment & Products		420,752		542,589			—		963,341
Life Sciences Tools & Services		1,460,902		149,895			—		1,610,797
Machinery		7,418,681		6,133,950			—		13,552,631
Marine		—		719,325			—		719,325
Media		11,455,040		2,846,336			—		14,301,376
Metals & Mining		3,407,722		12,303,383			—		15,711,105
Multi-Utilities		5,435,029		2,796,421			—		8,231,450
Multiline Retail		3,035,217		896,578			—		3,931,795
Office Electronics		357,404		1,535,522			—		1,892,926
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels		37,992,786		18,491,458			—		56,484,244
Paper & Forest Products		579,844		606,346			—		1,186,190
Personal Products		648,832		1,232,324			—		1,881,156
Pharmaceuticals		23,367,462		18,996,417			—		42,363,879
Professional Services		403,613		1,199,750			—		1,603,363
Real Estate Investment Trusts		60,079,377		27,039,402			—		87,118,779
Real Estate Management & Development		1,395,141		26,843,420			—		28,238,561
Road & Rail		3,255,653		2,339,322			—		5,594,975
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment		8,621,738		1,451,554			—		10,073,292
Software		12,830,677		1,994,659			—		14,825,336
Specialty Retail		7,332,796		2,064,329			—		9,397,125
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods		2,391,414		2,658,596			—		5,050,010
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance		256,107		—			—		256,107
Tobacco		7,351,291		3,815,612			—		11,166,903
Trading Companies & Distributors		785,367		2,885,237			—		3,670,604
Transportation Infrastructure		—		940,226			—		940,226
Water Utilities		—		279,516			—		279,516
Wireless Telecommunication Services		309,482		5,367,922			—		5,677,404
Total Common Stocks		423,039,608		269,832,631			—		692,872,239
Total U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies*		—		530,180,976			—		530,180,976
Total Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities*		—		107,247,137			—		107,247,137
Investment Company Securities		161,138,614		212,950			—		161,351,564
Total Preferred Stocks*		—		1,082,628			—		1,082,628
Purchased Options		391,079		—			—		391,079
Total Short-Term Investments*		—		872,182,000			—		872,182,000
Total Investments	$	584,569,301	$	1,780,738,322		$	—	$	2,365,307,623
Forwards**
Forward Foreign Currency Contracts (Unrealized Appreciation)	$	—	$	2,785,069		$	—	$	2,785,069
Forward Foreign Currency Contracts (Unrealized Depreciation)		—		(1,631,468	)		—		(1,631,468	)
Total Forwards	$	—	$	1,153,601		$	—	$	1,153,601

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

31

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY—(Continued)

Description	Level 1			Level 2		Level 3		Total
Futures**
Futures Contracts (Unrealized Appreciation)	$	3,461,023		$	—	$	—	$	3,461,023
Futures Contracts (Unrealized Depreciation)		(1,102,063	)		—		—		(1,102,063	)
Total Futures	$	2,358,960		$	—	$	—	$	2,358,960
Swap Contracts**
Swap Contracts at Value (Assets)	$	—		$	2,014,019	$	—	$	2,014,019
Swap Contracts at Value (Liabilities)		—			—		—		—
Total Swap Contracts	$	—		$	2,014,019	$	—	$	2,014,019

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

** Derivative instruments such as forwards and futures contracts are valued on the unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the instrument. Swap contracts are presented at value.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

32

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)	$	1,492,057,240
Affiliated investments, at value (b)		1,068,383
Repurchase Agreements		872,182,000
Cash		366
Cash denominated in foreign currencies (c)		1,486,899
Receivable for investments sold		10,757,303
Receivable for shares sold		13,284,534
Dividends receivable		937,279
Interest receivable		4,496,693
Net variation margin on futures contracts		770,127
Swaps at market value		2,014,019
Unrealized appreciation on forward currency exchange contracts		2,785,069
Total assets		2,401,839,912
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		208,489,738
Cash collateral for swaps		1,330,000
Shares redeemed		1,997
Unrealized depreciation on forward currency exchange contracts		1,631,468
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		1,073,176
Distribution and service fees - Class B		429,462
Administration fees		8,192
Custodian and accounting fees		87,898
Deferred trustees’ fees		5,674
Other expenses		46,463
Total liabilities		213,104,068
Net Assets	$	2,188,735,844
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	2,177,080,393
Accumulated net realized loss		(8,494,056	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments, futures contracts, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		19,519,890
Undistributed net investment income		629,617
Net Assets	$	2,188,735,844
Net Assets
Class B	$	2,188,735,844
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class B		224,980,924
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class B	$	9.73

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreement and affiliated investments, was $1,477,827,999.

(b) Identified cost of affiliated investments was $1,070,696.

(c) Identified cost of cash denominated in foreign currencies was $1,485,037.

Statement of Operations

For the Period Ended December 31, 2011*

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	4,855,162
Dividends from affiliated translations		11,222
Interest		2,326,148
Total investment income		7,192,532
Expenses
Management fees		4,168,572
Administration fees		32,437
Custodian and accounting fees		517,153
Distribution and service fees - Class B		1,630,097
Audit and tax services		81,718
Legal		86,765
Trustees’ fees and expenses		24,598
Shareholder reporting		33,381
Insurance		1,305
Organizational expense		1,300
Miscellaneous		9,357
Total expenses		6,586,683
Less management fee waiver		(243,389	)
Net expenses		6,343,294
Net investment income		849,238
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments, Affiliated Investments, Futures Contracts, Swaps Contracts and Foreign Currency Transactions
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments		(5,958,795	)
Futures contracts		(5,701,574	)
Swap contracts		23,269,253
Foreign currency transactions		967,610
Net realized gain on investments, futures contracts, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		12,576,494
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on:
Investments		14,229,241
Affiliated investments		(2,313	)
Futures contracts		2,358,960
Swap contracts		2,014,019
Foreign currency transactions		919,983
Net change in unrealized appreciation on investments, affiliated investments, futures contracts, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		19,519,890
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments, affiliated investments, futures contracts, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		32,096,384
Net Increase in Net Assets from Operations	$	32,945,622

* Commencement of operations was 5/2/2011.

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $123,973.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

33

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Statement of Changes in Net Assets

	Period Ended December 31, 2011*
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	849,238
Net realized gain on investments, futures contracts, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		12,576,494
Net change in unrealized appreciation on investments, futures contracts, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		19,519,890
Net increase in net assets resulting from operations		32,945,622
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class B		(8,921,540	)
From net realized capital gains
Class B		(12,519,582	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(21,441,122	)
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		2,177,231,344
Net Increase in Net Assets		2,188,735,844
Net assets at end of period	$	2,188,735,844
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	629,617

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Period Ended December 31, 2011*
	Shares			Value
Class B
Sales		223,466,237		$	2,162,612,357
Reinvestments		2,217,282			21,441,122
Redemptions		(702,595	)		(6,822,135	)
Net increase		224,980,924		$	2,177,231,344
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	2,177,231,344

* Commencement of operations was 5/2/2011.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

34

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class B
	Period Ended December 31, 2011(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.00
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.01
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments		(0.18	)+
Total from investment operations		(0.17	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.04	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.06	)
Total distributions		(0.10	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	9.73
Total Return (%)		(1.72	)**
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.01	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)		0.97	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.13	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		15.3
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	2,188.7

+ The per share amount may differ with the change in aggregate gains (losses) as shown in the Statement of Operations due to the timing of purchases and sales of Portfolio shares in relation to fluctuating market values during the period.

* Annualized.

** Not annualized.

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Commencement of operations was 5/2/2011.

(c) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

35

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio (the “Portfolio”) (commenced operations on May 2, 2011), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class B Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investments in exchange traded funds are valued at the closing market quotation for their shares.

36

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Swap contracts are marked-to-market daily based on quotations and prices supplied by market makers, broker-dealers and pricing services. Such quotations and prices are derived utilizing significant observable data, including the underlying investments. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns will remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service for three fiscal years after the returns are filed.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to futures transactions, foreign currency transactions, swap transactions, options transactions, premium amortization adjustments, paydown transactions, passive foreign investment companies (PFICs), contingent payment debt instrument adjustments, forward transactions, deferred trustees’ compensation, and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated

37

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

Foreign Currency Translation - The books and records of the Portfolio are maintained in U.S. dollars. The values of securities, currencies and other assets and liabilities denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars are translated into U.S. dollars based upon foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period. Purchases and sales of investment securities, income and expenses are translated on the respective dates of such transactions. Since the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, it is not practical to isolate that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates from that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities. Such fluctuations are included in the net realized and unrealized gain or loss on investments.

Net realized foreign exchange gains or losses arise from activity in forward foreign currency exchange contracts, sales of foreign currency, currency gains or losses realized between the trade and settlement dates on securities transactions, and the difference between the amounts of dividends, interest, and foreign withholding taxes recorded by the Portfolio and the U.S. dollar equivalent of the amounts actually received or paid by the Portfolio. Gains and losses attributable to foreign currency exchange rates on sales of securities are recorded as Net realized gains and losses on investments. Net unrealized foreign exchange gains and losses arise from changes in the value of assets and liabilities, other than investment securities, resulting from changes in foreign exchange rates.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with AllianceBernstein L.P. (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the period ended December 31, 2011	% per annum	Average Daily Net Assets
$4,168,572	0.700%	First $250 Million
	0.650%	$250 Million to $500 Million
	0.625%	$500 Million to $1 Billion
	0.600%	Over $1 Billion

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Management Fee Waiver - The Subadviser voluntarily agreed to waive its entire subadvisory fee through July 31, 2011. Also through July 31, 2011, the Adviser voluntarily agreed to waive a portion of the management fee in an amount equal to the subadvisory fees waived. Amounts waived for the period ended December 31, 2011 are shown as a management fee waiver in the Statement of Operations.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Expense Limitation Agreement - The Adviser has entered into an expense limitation agreement with the Trust (“Expense Limitation Agreement”) in the interest of limiting expenses of the Portfolio. The Expense Limitation Agreement shall continue in effect with respect to the Portfolio until October 31, 2012. Pursuant to that Expense Limitation Agreement, the Adviser has agreed to waive or limit its fees and to assume other expenses so that the total annual operating expenses of the Portfolio other than interest, taxes, brokerage commissions, other expenditures

38

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

which are capitalized or expensed in accordance with GAAP, other extraordinary expenses not incurred in the ordinary course of the Portfolio’s business and acquired fund fees and expenses but including amounts payable pursuant to a plan adopted in accordance with Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act, are limited to the following expense ratio as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets:

Maximum Expense Ratio under current
Expense Limitation  Agreement

Class B

1.20%

If in any year in which the Management Agreement is still in effect, the estimated aggregate operating expenses of the Portfolio for the fiscal year are less than the Maximum Expense Ratio for that year, subject to approval by the Trust’s Board, the Adviser shall be entitled to reimbursement by the Portfolio to the extent that the charge does not cause the expenses in such subsequent year to exceed the Maximum Expense Ratio as stated above. The Portfolio is not obligated to repay any expense paid by the Adviser more than five years after the end of the fiscal year in which such expense was incurred.

Distribution Agreement and Plan - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B distribution plan provides that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B Shares. However, under the Class B distribution agreement, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B distribution plan are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the period ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B distribution plan and distribution agreement the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the period ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases		Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government	U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government
$521,251,328	$1,066,053,573	$—	$100,136,916

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - The Portfolio may enter into forward foreign currency exchange contracts to obtain investment exposure, enhance return or hedge or protect its portfolio holdings against the risk of future movements in certain foreign currency exchange rates. When entering into these contracts, the Portfolio agrees to receive or deliver a fixed quantity of foreign currency for an agreed-upon price on an agreed upon future date. These contracts are valued daily and the Portfolio’s net equity therein, representing unrealized gain or loss on the contracts as measured by the difference between the forward foreign exchange rates at the dates of entry into the contracts and the forward foreign exchange rates at the value date, is included in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. When a contract is closed, the Portfolio recognizes a realized gain or loss equal to the difference between the value of the contract at the time it was opened and the value at the time it was closed.

Realized and unrealized gains and losses on forward foreign currency exchange contracts are included in the Statement of Operations. These contracts involve market and/or credit risk in excess of the amount recognized in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

39

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments - continued

The use of forward foreign currency exchange contracts does not eliminate fluctuations in the underlying prices of the securities of the Portfolio, but it does establish a rate of exchange that can be achieved in the future. Although forward foreign currency exchange contracts may limit the risk of loss due to a decline in the value of the currency holdings, they also limit any potential gain that might result should the value of the currency increase. In addition, the Portfolio could be exposed to risks if the counterparties to the contracts are unable to meet the terms of the contracts. The Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit risk, as opposed to investment and other types of risk, in respect of foreign currency forward contracts is typically the value of the currency the Portfolio is due from its counterparty at settlement plus the value of the currency paid, if any, to the Portfolio’s counterparty.

Futures Contracts - The Portfolio may buy and sell futures contracts (on recognized exchanges) as a hedge, to maintain investment exposure to a target asset class or to enhance return. The Portfolio may be subject to fluctuations in equity prices, interest rates, commodity prices and foreign currency exchange rates in the normal course of pursuing its investment objective. Futures contracts are standardized agreements to buy or sell a security, or deliver a final cash settlement price in connection with an index, interest rate, currency, or other asset. The Portfolio must deposit an amount (“initial margin”) equal to a certain percentage of the face value of the futures contract. The initial margin may be in the form of cash or securities which is returned when the Portfolio’s obligations under the contract have been satisfied. If cash is deposited as the initial margin, it is shown as “restricted cash” on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Futures contracts are marked-to-market daily and subsequent payments (“variation margin”) are made or received by the Portfolio depending on the daily fluctuations in the value of the futures contracts. These amounts are reflected as receivables or payables on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Risks of entering into futures contracts (and related options) include the possibility that the market for these instruments may be illiquid and that a change in the value of the contract or option may not correlate perfectly with changes in the value of the underlying instrument. Futures contracts are exchange traded and the exchange’s clearinghouse, as counterparty to all exchange traded futures, guarantees the futures contracts against default.

Swap Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into swap contracts. Swap contracts are derivatives agreements to exchange the return generated by one instrument for the return generated by another instrument. The payment streams are calculated by reference to a specified index and agreed upon notional amount. The term “specified index” includes, but is not limited to, currencies, fixed interest rates, prices and total return on interest rate indices, fixed income indices, stock indices and commodity indices (as well as amounts derived from arithmetic operations on these indices). A Portfolio will usually enter into swaps on a net basis, i.e., the two payment streams are netted out in a cash settlement on the payment date or dates specified in the instrument, with the Portfolio receiving or paying, as the case may be, only the net amount of the two payments. The Portfolio’s obligations under a swap agreement will be accrued daily (offset against any amounts owing to the Portfolio) and any accrued but unpaid net amounts owed to a swap counterparty will be covered by designating the segregation, either on its records or with the Trust’s custodian, of cash or other liquid assets, to avoid any potential leveraging of the Portfolio. The Portfolio may enter into swap transactions with counterparties that are approved by the investment adviser in accordance with guidelines established by the Board. These guidelines provide for a minimum credit rating for each counterparty and various credit enhancement techniques (for example, collateralization of amounts due from counterparties) to limit exposure to counterparties that have lower credit ratings.

An index swap is an agreement to swap cash flows on a notional amount based on changes in the values of the reference indices.

Currency Swaps: A currency swap is an agreement to exchange cash flows on a notional amount of two or more currencies based on the relative value differential among them. Such swaps may involve initial and final exchanges that correspond to the agreed upon notional amount. Currency swaps usually involve the delivery of the entire principal value of one designated currency in exchange for the other designated currency. Therefore, the entire principal value of a currency swap is subject to the risk that the other party to the swap will default on its contractual delivery obligations. If there is a default by the counterparty, the Portfolio may have contractual remedies pursuant to the agreements related to the transaction.

Interest Rate Swaps: The Portfolio may enter into interest rate swaps and the purchase or sale of related caps and floors. The Portfolio may enter into these transactions primarily to manage its exposure to interest rates, to protect against currency fluctuations, or to preserve a return or spread on a particular investment. The Portfolio is subject to interest rate risk exposure in the normal course of pursuing its investment objectives. Because the Portfolio has exposure to fixed income securities, the value of these securities may decrease if interest rates rise. To help hedge against this risk and to maintain its ability to generate income at prevailing market rates, the Portfolio may enter into interest rate swap contracts. Interest rate swaps are arrangements between two parties to exchange cash flows based on a notional principal amount, to manage the Portfolio’s exposure to interest rate risk. Interest rate swap contracts are marked-to-market daily based upon quotations from market makers and the change, if any, is recorded as unrealized gain or loss. Payments received or made are recorded as realized gains or losses. The Portfolio could be exposed to credit or market risk due to unfavorable changes in the fluctuation of interest rates or if the counterparty defaults on its obligation to perform. Risks may exceed amounts recognized on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The purchase of a cap entitles the purchaser, to the extent that a specific index exceeds a predetermined interest rate, to receive payments of interest on a notional principal amount from the party selling such cap. The purchase of a floor entitles the purchaser to receive payments on a notional principal amount from the party selling such floor to the extent that a specified index falls below a predetermined interest rate or amount. The Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit risk is the discounted net value of the cash flows to be received from/paid to the counterparty over the contract’s remaining

40

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments - continued

life, to the extent that amount is positive. As of December 31, 2011, the net unrealized appreciation on such transactions agreements was $2,014,019. This risk is mitigated by maintaining a master netting arrangement between the Portfolio and the counterparty and by the posting of collateral by the counterparty to the Portfolio to cover the Portfolio’s exposure to the counterparty.

Swap agreements are marked to market daily. The change in value, if any, is recorded as unrealized gain or loss in the Statement of Operations. A liquidation payment received or made at the termination of the swap is recorded as realized gain or loss in the Statement of Operations. Net periodic payments are included as part of realized gain (loss) on the Statement of Operations.

Total Return Swaps: Total return swap contracts involve commitments to pay interest in exchange for a market-linked return both based on notional amounts. To the extent the total return of the security or index underlying the transactions exceeds or falls short of the offsetting interest rate obligation, the Portfolio will receive a payment from or make a payment to the counterparty.

The swaps in which the Portfolio may engage may include instruments under which one party pays a single or periodic fixed amount(s) (or premium), and the other party pays periodic amounts based on the movement of a specified index. Swaps do not involve the delivery of securities, other underlying assets, or principal. The Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit risk, as opposed to investment and other types of risk, in respect of swaps is typically the discounted net value of the cash flows to be received from the counterparty over the contract’s remaining life to the extent that such amount is positive, plus the cost of entering into a similar transaction with another counterparty, if possible.

The use of swaps is a highly specialized activity that involves investment techniques and risks different from those associated with ordinary portfolio securities transactions. If the Adviser or Subadviser is incorrect in its forecasts of market values, interest rates, and currency exchange rates, the investment performance of the Portfolio would be less favorable than it would have been if this investment technique were not used.

At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had the following derivatives, categorized by risk exposure:

	Asset Derivatives			Liability Derivatives
Risk Exposure	Statement of Assets and Liabilities Location	Fair Value		Statement of Assets and Liabilities Location	Fair Value
Interest Rate	Swaps at market value	$	1,256,838	Swaps at market value	$	—
	Unrealized appreciation on futures contracts*		1,215,873	Unrealized depreciation on futures contracts*		80,140
Equity	Swaps at market value		757,181	Swaps at market value		—
	Unrealized appreciation on futures contracts*		2,245,150	Unrealized depreciation on futures contracts*		1,021,923
Currency	Unrealized appreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts		2,785,069	Unrealized depreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts		1,631,468
Equity	Investment at value(a)		391,079	Investment at value(a)		—
Total		$	8,651,190		$	2,733,531

* Includes cumulative appreciation/depreciation of futures contracts as reported in the notes to financial statements. Only the current day’s variation margin is reported within the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

Transactions in derivative instruments during the period ended December 31, 2011, were as follows:

Statement of Operations Location - Net Realized Gain (Loss)	Interest Rate		Equity			Currency		Total
Investments(a)	$	—	$	(26,969	)	$	—	$	(26,969	)
Future contracts		10,984,808		(16,686,382	)		—		(5,701,574	)
Swap contracts		26,630,346		(3,361,093	)		—		23,269,253
	$	37,615,154	$	(20,074,444	)	$	—	$	17,540,710

41

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments - continued

Statement of Operations Location - Net Change in Unrealized Gain (Loss)	Interest Rate		Equity			Currency		Total
Investments(a)	$	—	$	(2,275,299	)	$	—	$	(2,275,299	)
Foreign currency transactions		—		—			1,153,601		1,153,601
Future contracts		1,135,733		1,223,227			—		2,358,960
Swap contracts		1,256,838		757,181			—		2,014,019
	$	2,392,571	$	(294,891	)	$	1,153,601	$	3,251,281

For the period ended December 31, 2011, the average amount or number per contract outstanding for each derivative type was as follows:

Derivative Description	Average Notional or Face Amount(b)
Investments(a)	$	383,837
Foreign currency transactions		308,065,220
Future contracts long		118,141,814
Future contracts short		(269,050	)
Swap contracts		275,349,190

(a) Includes options purchased which are part of investments as shown in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities and net realized gain (loss) on investments and change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments as shown in the Statement of Operations.

(b) Averages are based on activity levels during 2011.

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts to buy:

Settlement Date	Counterparty	Contracts to Buy			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Net Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
3/15/2012	Standard Chartered Bank		3,773,000	AUD		3,836,666		3,796,996	$	39,670
1/5/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		44,681	CAD		43,939		43,919		20
3/15/2012	Royal Bank of Scotland plc		2,008,000	EUR		2,606,230		2,621,544		(15,314	)
3/15/2012	Barclays Bank plc		7,966,000	GBP		12,367,269		12,449,400		(82,131	)
3/15/2012	Citibank N.A.		1,131,000	GBP		1,755,885		1,783,121		(27,236	)
3/15/2012	Citibank N.A.		1,664,000	GBP		2,583,371		2,569,584		13,787
3/15/2012	Credit Suisse London		1,506,000	GBP		2,338,075		2,355,426		(17,351	)
3/15/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		1,135,000	GBP		1,762,095		1,789,396		(27,301	)
3/15/2012	Royal Bank of Scotland plc		1,111,000	GBP		1,724,835		1,760,002		(35,167	)
3/15/2012	Royal Bank of Scotland plc		2,444,000	GBP		3,794,326		3,773,732		20,594
3/15/2012	Royal Bank of Scotland plc		18,736,000	GBP		29,087,767		29,335,892		(248,125	)
2/17/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		29,046,180	JPY		377,530		375,706		1,824
3/15/2012	Barclays Bank plc		213,273,000	JPY		2,773,595		2,735,549		38,046
3/15/2012	Credit Suisse London		319,774,000	JPY		4,158,631		4,121,585		37,046
3/15/2012	Credit Suisse London		581,905,000	JPY		7,567,620		7,509,421		58,199
3/15/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		463,011,000	JPY		6,021,415		5,951,887		69,528
3/15/2012	HSBC Bank USA		167,059,000	JPY		2,172,587		2,155,016		17,571

42

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - continued

Settlement Date	Counterparty	Contracts to Buy			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Net Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
3/15/2012	Royal Bank of Scotland plc		203,827,000	JPY		2,650,751		2,655,969	$	(5,218	)
3/15/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		158,610,000	JPY		2,062,708		2,042,785		19,923
3/15/2012	Barclays Bank plc		2,995,000	NOK		500,231		519,408		(19,177	)
3/15/2012	Barclays Bank plc		15,642,000	SEK		2,267,435		2,309,639		(42,204	)
Net Unrealized Depreciation									$	(203,016	)

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts to sell:

Settlement Date	Counterparty	Contracts to Deliver			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Net Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
1/6/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		912,861	AUD		935,470		878,483	$	(56,987	)
3/15/2012	HSBC Bank USA		20,348,000	AUD		20,691,357		20,477,983		(213,374	)
3/15/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		6,967,000	AUD		7,084,563		6,662,612		(421,951	)
3/15/2012	UBS AG		2,683,000	AUD		2,728,274		2,718,802		(9,472	)
1/5/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		2,557,752	CAD		2,515,254		2,477,385		(37,869	)
3/15/2012	Barclays Bank plc		5,082,000	CAD		4,989,853		4,958,547		(31,306	)
3/15/2012	Barclays Bank plc		514,000	CHF		549,026		557,871		8,845
3/15/2012	Citibank N.A.		5,932,000	CHF		6,336,230		6,469,344		133,114
3/15/2012	Royal Bank of Scotland plc		11,929,000	CHF		12,741,890		12,743,705		1,815
1/27/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		1,212,220	DKK		211,552		212,598		1,046
1/19/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		33,467,015	EUR		43,415,229		43,517,159		101,930
1/19/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		208,417	EUR		270,370		271,909		1,539
1/19/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		853,336	EUR		1,106,994		1,110,967		3,973
1/19/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		183,322	EUR		237,815		239,807		1,992
3/15/2012	Barclays Bank plc		2,017,000	EUR		2,617,911		2,742,420		124,509
3/15/2012	Barclays Bank plc		26,989,000	EUR		35,029,646		36,129,527		1,099,881
3/15/2012	Goldman Sachs International		3,272,000	EUR		4,246,804		4,388,832		142,028
3/15/2012	HSBC Bank USA		4,447,000	EUR		5,771,864		5,933,988		162,124
3/15/2012	HSBC Bank USA		3,512,000	EUR		4,558,306		4,586,848		28,542
3/15/2012	Royal Bank of Scotland plc		14,687,000	EUR		19,062,596		19,658,550		595,954
1/19/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		6,609,146	GBP		10,266,288		10,226,861		(39,427	)
2/17/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		2,226,817,373	JPY		28,943,218		28,995,773		52,555
2/17/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		1,325,796,672	JPY		17,232,138		17,005,024		(227,114	)
2/17/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		20,283,490	JPY		263,636		260,918		(2,718	)
2/17/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		152,078,967	JPY		1,976,658		1,955,346		(21,312	)
2/17/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		13,566,704	JPY		176,334		174,532		(1,802	)
3/15/2012	Royal Bank of Scotland plc		222,149,000	JPY		2,889,027		2,861,270		(27,757	)
1/20/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		14,509,367	MXN		1,038,450		1,047,464		9,014

43

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - continued

Settlement Date	Counterparty	Contracts to Deliver			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Net Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
1/20/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		555,672	PLN		161,110		160,934	$	(176	)
1/27/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		1,426,394	SEK		207,218		206,484		(734	)
3/15/2012	Barclays Bank plc		15,486,000	SEK		2,244,822		2,230,866		(13,956	)
1/20/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		1,317,484	ZAR		162,680		156,391		(6,289	)
Net Unrealized Appreciation									$	1,356,617

AUD— Australian Dollar

CAD— Canadian Dollar

CHF— Swiss Franc

DKK— Danish Krone

EUR— Euro

GBP— British Pound

JPY— Japanese Yen

MXN— Mexican Peso

NOK— Norwegian Krone

PLN— Polish Zloty

SEK— Swedish Krona

ZAR— South African Rand

7. Futures Contracts

The futures contracts outstanding as of December 31, 2011, and the description and unrealized appreciation (depreciation) were as follows:

Futures Contracts - Long	Exchange	Expiration Date		Number of Contracts		Contract Amount		Valuation as of December 31, 2011		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
ASX SPI 200 Index Futures	Australian Securities Exchange		03/15/2012		222	$	23,652,961	$	22,863,081	$	(789,880	)
Australian Treasury Bond 10 Year Futures	Australian Securities Exchange		03/15/2012		8		964,473		974,938		10,465
Canada Government Bond 10 Year Futures	Euronext Paris Monep		03/21/2012		9		1,171,877		1,184,599		12,722
FTSE 100 Index Futures	NYSE Euronext Liffe		03/16/2012		664		55,930,083		57,107,010		1,176,927
German Euro Bobl Futures	Eurex Deutschland		03/08/2012		8		1,277,549		1,298,291		20,742
German Euro Bund Futures	Eurex Deutschland		03/08/2012		41		7,205,017		7,394,584		189,567
German Euro Buxl Futures	Eurex Deutschland		03/08/2012		23		3,637,711		3,817,019		179,308
German Euro Schatz Futures	Eurex Deutschland		03/08/2012		24		3,424,490		3,435,060		10,570
Hang Seng Index Futures	Hong Kong Futures Exchange, Ltd.		01/30/2012		73		8,715,930		8,673,379		(42,551	)
Japan Government Bond 10 Year Mini Futures	Singapore Exchange		03/08/2012		164		30,202,517		30,356,722		154,205
MSCI EAFE E Mini Index Futures	New York Mercantile Exchange - Energy Markets		03/16/2012		8		556,773		563,760		6,987
S&P 500 E-Mini Index Futures	Index and Options Market		03/16/2012		923		56,746,254		57,807,490		1,061,236
Topix Index Futures	Tokyo Stock Exchange		03/09/2012		546		51,818,015		51,628,523		(189,492	)

44

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

7. Futures Contracts - continued

Futures Contracts - Long	Exchange	Expiration Date		Number of Contracts		Contract Amount		Valuation as of December 31, 2011		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
U.S. Treasury Note 5 Year Futures	Chicago Board of Trade		03/30/2012		92	$	11,290,047	$	11,339,719	$	49,672
U.S. Treasury Note 10 Year Futures	Chicago Board of Trade		03/21/2012		407		52,964,530		53,367,875		403,345
U.S. Treasury Bond 30 Year Futures	Chicago Board of Trade		03/21/2012		30		4,285,297		4,344,375		59,078
Ultra Long-Term U.S. Treasury Bond Futures	Chicago Board of Trade		03/21/2012		184		29,554,640		29,474,500		(80,140	)
United Kingdom Long Gilt Bond Futures	NYSE Euronext Liffe		03/28/2012		40		7,141,308		7,267,507		126,199
Net Unrealized Appreciation										$	2,358,960

8. Swap Agreements

Open interest rate swap agreements at December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Pay/Receive Floating Rate

Floating Rate Index

Fixed Rate

Maturity Date

Counterparty

Notional Amount

Market Value

Upfront Premium Paid/(Received)

Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)

Pay

USD 3ML

2.0600

%

1/4/2022

Bank of America N.A.

USD 537,340,000

$

1,256,838

$

—

$

1,256,838

Open equity total return swap agreements at December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Pay/Receive Floating Rate

Floating Rate Index

Maturity Date

Counterparty

Underlying Reference Instrument

Notional Amount

Market Value

Upfront Premium Paid/(Received)

Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)

Pay

USD 1ML

5/18/2012

UBS AG

FTSE EPRA/NAREIT Developed Real Estate Index

USD

264,570

$  11,801

$—

$  11,801

Pay

USD 1ML

6/20/2012

UBS AG

FTSE EPRA/NAREIT Developed Real Estate Index

USD

531,786

23,720

—

23,720

Pay

USD 1ML

7/19/2012

Deutsche Bank AG

FTSE EPRA/NAREIT Developed Real Estate Index

USD

394,209

17,584

—

17,584

Pay

USD 1ML

8/20/2012

Deutsche Bank AG

FTSE EPRA/NAREIT Developed Real Estate Index

USD

2,646

118

—

118

Pay

USD 1ML

9/20/2012

Deutsche Bank AG

FTSE EPRA/NAREIT Developed Real Estate Index

USD

1,090,028

48,620

—

48,620

Pay

USD 1ML

9/20/2012

Deutsche Bank AG

FTSE EPRA/NAREIT Developed Real Estate Index

USD

486,809

21,714

—

21,714

Pay

USD 1ML

10/18/2012

Deutsche Bank AG

FTSE EPRA/NAREIT Developed Real Estate Index

USD

1,455,135

64,906

—

64,906

Pay

USD 1ML

10/18/2012

Deutsche Bank AG

FTSE EPRA/NAREIT Developed Real Estate Index

USD

1,349,307

60,186

—

60,186

Pay

USD 1ML

11/15/2012

Credit Suisse International

FTSE EPRA/NAREIT Developed Real Estate Index

USD

3,542,592

158,017

—

158,017

Pay

USD 1ML

11/20/2012

Deutsche Bank AG

FTSE EPRA/NAREIT Developed Real Estate Index

USD

1,113,840

49,683

—

49,683

Pay

USD 1ML

11/20/2012

Deutsche Bank AG

FTSE EPRA/NAREIT Developed Real Estate Index

USD

1,418,095

63,254

—

63,254

Pay

USD 1ML

12/20/2012

Deutsche Bank AG

FTSE EPRA/NAREIT Developed Real Estate Index

USD

2,741,229

124,739

—

124,739

Pay

USD 1ML

12/20/2012

Deutsche Bank AG

FTSE EPRA/NAREIT Developed Real Estate Index

USD

2,158,932

112,839

—

112,839

Total

$757,181

$—

$757,181

45

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

9. Transactions in Securities of Affiliated Issuers

A summary of Portfolio’s transactions in the securities of affiliated issuers during the period ended December 31, 2011 was as follows:

Security Description	Number of shares held at December 31, 2010		Shares purchased		Shares sold		Number of shares held at December 31, 2011		Realized Gain on shares sold		Income for Period Ended December 31, 2011
MetLife, Inc.		—		34,265		—		34,265	$	—	$	11,222

10. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

11. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

12. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the period ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Ordinary Income	Long-Term Capital Gain	Total
$16,964,236	$4,476,886	$21,441,122

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Deferral			Total
$3,155,565	$	—	$	8,811,648	$	(306,088	)	$	11,661,125

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses. At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not have any capital loss carryforwards.

13. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective

46

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

13. Recent Accounting Pronouncements - continued

prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

47

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”), as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations, the statement of changes in net assets, and the financial highlights for the period from May 2, 2011 (commencement of operations) to December 31, 2011. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audit included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, and the results of its operations, the changes in its net assets, and the financial highlights for the period from May 2, 2011 (commencement of operations) to December 31, 2011, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 28, 2012

48

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

49

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

50

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

51

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust American Funds^® Balanced Allocation Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Balanced Allocation Portfolio

Managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A and B shares of the American Funds^® Balanced Allocation Portfolio returned -1.79% and -2.13%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Dow Jones Moderate Index¹, returned 0.28%.

Economic and Market Review

Economic and political unrest around the world caused sudden and often sharp shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. As a result, riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit based bonds were extremely volatile throughout the year. Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates. Below investment grade bonds experienced a sharp sell-off during the third quarter as investors feared that the European credit crisis might spread and derail the already fragile global economic recovery, but high yield bonds recovered fully in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a tepid, but respectable 5.0% total return. Foreign bonds had similar returns as domestic bonds; although differences in exchange rates produced variations in the returns of bonds from different countries.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to concerns about the economy and global events. After producing a modest return of 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the full year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Smaller domestic stocks, as measured by the Russell 2000 Index, were down 4.2% for the year. Growth style stocks performed modestly better than value style stocks. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis. Stocks in Europe were hurt by both a drop in prices and a stronger dollar, which made these stocks less valuable to the dollar based investors.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

The American Funds^® Balanced Allocation Portfolio invested all of its assets in funds of the American Funds Insurance Series (AFIS). The Portfolio’s broad asset allocation goal of 35% to fixed income and 65% to equities did not change during the period. Although the Allocation Portfolio does not have an explicit goal for a money market fund, its underlying portfolios typically hold cash positions of 5% to 10% to give the portfolio counselors the liquidity and flexibility to exploit investment opportunities when they become available. For the equity portfolios, holding cash produced mixed results during 2011: it hurt performance in the first and fourth quarters when stocks produced strong returns, but it dampened losses in the middle quarters when stocks suffered declines. Overall, the underlying portfolios’ weak security selection and sector positioning hurt relative performance.

On both a relative and absolute basis, the two domestic equity underlying portfolios detracted modestly from the Portfolio’s overall performance. The AFIS Growth-Income Fund was hurt by its selection in the Financial Services and Information Technology sectors. In particular, they held an overweight position in the Bank of America, which was down nearly 60% for the year and an underweight to Apple, which was up about 25% and was among the largest components within the market. The AFIS Growth Fund’s absolute performance was hurt by its nearly 20% position in foreign securities, which trailed domestic stocks during 2011. As might be expected with a fund with a growth focus, the fund held an underweight to a more defensive sector like Consumer Staples and an overweight to a sector more tied to a strong and growing economy such as Materials. This positioning generally detracted from relative performance. Selection in the Energy sector hurt performance; most notable was energy producer Pacific Rubiales Energy Corporation, which has operations in Canada and South America.

Within the Portfolio’s foreign equity portfolios, exposure to smaller companies and stocks from emerging markets detracted from performance as most investors shunned risk. The Portfolio’s largest foreign holding, the AFIS International Fund, trailed the broad foreign equity markets due to sector and regional positioning as well as security selection. The fund’s biggest individual detractors were European Financial Services companies Erste Bank (Austria), Lloyds Banking Group, and Credit Suisse.

The super safe AFIS U.S. Government/AAA - Rated Securities Fund performed better than the broad bond markets as investors shunned credit risk. The Portfolio’s other underlying fixed income funds hurt absolute performance as high yield and foreign bonds trailed high quality domestic fixed income securities.

Investment Committee

MetLife Advisers, LLC

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio and market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are as December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions. MetLife Advisers undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statements) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation, or country diversification (or that of the underlying portfolios used in the Portfolio) is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Balanced Allocation Portfolio

Managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
American Funds Growth-Income Fund (Class 1)		35.2
American Funds Growth Fund (Class 1)		20.4
American Funds U.S. Government/AAA - Rated Securities Fund (Class 1)		13.4
American Funds Bond Fund (Class 1)		10.4
American Funds International Fund (Class 1)		7.7
American Funds High-Income Bond Fund (Class 1)		5.2
American Funds Global Small Capitalization Fund (Class 1)		2.9
American Funds New World Fund (Class 1)		2.9
American Funds Global Bond Fund (Class 1)		2.0

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Balanced Allocation Portfolio

American Funds^® Balanced Allocation Portfolio managed by

MetLife Advisers, LLC vs. Dow Jones Moderate Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		Since Inception3
American Funds® Balanced Allocation Portfolio—Class B		-1.79%		0.44%
Class C		-2.13%		0.14%
Dow Jones Moderate Index1		0.28%		2.09%

The performance of Class B shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other class because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹ The Dow Jones Moderate Index is a total returns index designed to provide asset allocation strategists with a target risk benchmark. Each month, the Index adjusts its weighting of stocks, bonds, and cash indices (both domestic and foreign) from Barclays and Dow Jones such that the risk combination will have 60% of the risk of an all equity portfolio.

² “Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

³ Inception of the Class B and Class C shares is 4/28/2008. Index returns are based on an inception date of 4/28/2008.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Balanced Allocation Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class B(a)
Actual		0.51%	$	1,000.00	$	941.60	$	2.50
Hypothetical*		0.51%		1,000.00		1,022.63		2.60
Class C(a)
Actual		0.81%	$	1,000.00	$	940.30	$	3.96
Hypothetical*		0.81%		1,000.00		1,021.12		4.13

*   Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

**  Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

(a) The annualized expense ratio reflects the expenses of both the Portfolio and the Underlying Portfolios in which it invests.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Balanced Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Mutual Funds—100.1% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Investment Company Securities—100.1%
American Funds Bond Fund (Class 1)(a)		38,505,387	$	423,174,208
American Funds Global Bond Fund (Class 1)(a)		7,007,356		83,807,976
American Funds Global Small Capitalization Fund (Class 1)(a)		6,813,049		117,797,623
American Funds Growth Fund (Class 1)(a)		15,958,063		830,936,363
American Funds Growth-Income Fund (Class 1)(a)		43,140,269		1,435,276,762
American Funds High-Income Bond Fund (Class 1)(a)		19,958,752		210,365,242
American Funds International Fund (Class 1)(a)		20,687,935		314,663,484
American Funds New World Fund (Class 1)(a)		5,978,715		117,481,745
American Funds U.S. Government/AAA - Rated Securities Fund (Class 1)(a)		42,326,492		550,244,397
Total Mutual Funds (Cost $3,784,968,216)				4,083,747,800
Total Investments—100.1% (Cost $3,784,968,216#)				4,083,747,800
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(0.1)%				(2,193,753	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	4,081,554,047

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $3,820,614,688. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $316,066,499 and $(52,933,387), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $263,133,112 for federal income tax purposes.

(a) A Fund of the American Funds Insurance Series. (See Note 7 to Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in securities of Underlying Portfolios.)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Balanced Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Mutual Funds
Investment Company Securities	$	4,083,747,800	$	—	$	—	$	4,083,747,800
Total Investments	$	4,083,747,800	$	—	$	—	$	4,083,747,800

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Balanced Allocation Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Affiliated investments at value (a)	$	4,083,747,800
Receivable for investments sold		625,937
Receivable for shares sold		164,573
Total assets		4,084,538,310
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		1,063
Shares redeemed		789,448
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		204,658
Distribution and service fees - Class B		431
Distribution and service fees - Class C		1,899,941
Administration fees		2,000
Custodian and accounting fees		2,067
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		59,588
Total liabilities		2,984,263
Net Assets	$	4,081,554,047
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	3,701,071,601
Accumulated net realized gain		8,678,084
Unrealized appreciation on investments		298,779,584
Undistributed net investment income		73,024,778
Net Assets	$	4,081,554,047
Net Assets
Class B	$	2,061,800
Class C		4,079,492,247
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class B		216,520
Class C		431,488,292
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class B	$	9.52
Class C		9.45

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of affiliated investments was $3,784,968,216.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios	$	89,576,610
Total investment income		89,576,610
Expenses
Management fees		2,393,423
Administration fees		24,000
Custodian and accounting fees		24,800
Distribution and service fees - Class B		4,520
Distribution and service fees - Class C		22,192,707
Audit and tax services		24,536
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Shareholder reporting		68,408
Insurance		40,726
Miscellaneous		30,030
Total expenses		24,871,860
Net investment income		64,704,750
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Affiliated Investments
Net realized gain on:
Affiliated investments		40,139,003
Capital gain distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		13,677,417
Net realized gain on affiliated investments and capital gain distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		53,816,420
Net change in unrealized depreciation on affiliated investments		(219,705,025	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on affiliated investments		(165,888,605	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(101,183,855	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Balanced Allocation Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	64,704,750		$	49,262,614
Net realized gain (loss) on affiliated investments and capital gain distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		53,816,420			(9,395,369	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on affiliated investments		(219,705,025	)		304,908,419
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations		(101,183,855	)		344,775,664
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class B		(25,798	)		(10,261	)
Class C		(50,842,682	)		(27,437,163	)
From net realized capital gains
Class B		(962	)		(381	)
Class C		(2,238,552	)		(1,177,268	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(53,107,994	)		(28,625,073	)
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		665,683,054			1,255,094,945
Net Increase in Net Assets		511,391,205			1,571,245,536
Net assets at beginning of period		3,570,162,842			1,998,917,306
Net assets at end of period	$	4,081,554,047		$	3,570,162,842
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	73,024,778		$	50,852,039

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class B
Sales		87,371		$	848,438			97,927		$	899,947
Reinvestments		2,642			26,760			1,148			10,642
Redemptions		(25,344	)		(242,627	)		(16,028	)		(143,717	)
Net increase		64,669		$	632,571			83,047		$	766,872
Class C
Sales		85,893,691		$	850,406,983			152,242,289		$	1,375,333,474
Reinvestments		5,265,995			53,081,234			3,100,155			28,614,431
Redemptions		(24,661,285	)		(238,437,734	)		(16,791,775	)		(149,619,832	)
Net increase		66,498,401		$	665,050,483			138,550,669		$	1,254,328,073
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	665,683,054					$	1,255,094,945

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Balanced Allocation Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009		2008(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	9.84		$	8.87		$	6.82	$	10.00
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.20			0.22			0.24		0.08
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.36	)		0.87			1.81		(3.00	)
Total from investment operations		(0.16	)		1.09			2.05		(2.92	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.15	)		(0.12	)		0.00		(0.26	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.01	)		(0.00	)+		0.00		(0.00	)+
Total distributions		(0.16	)		(0.12	)		0.00		(0.26	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	9.52		$	9.84		$	8.87	$	6.82
Total Return (%)		(1.79	)		12.40			30.06		(29.20	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)(c)(d)		0.32			0.33			0.36		0.78	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(d)(e)		0.32			0.33			0.35		0.35	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)(f)		2.06			2.38			2.99		1.32	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		7.2			6.4			5.9		12.1
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	2.1		$	1.5		$	0.6	$	0.1
	Class C
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009		2008(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	9.78		$	8.82		$	6.82	$	10.00
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations:
Net investment income(a)		0.16			0.17			0.17		0.36
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.36	)		0.89			1.83		(3.28	)
Total from investment operations		(0.20	)		1.06			2.00		(2.92	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.12	)		(0.10	)		0.00		(0.26	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.01	)		(0.00	)+		0.00		(0.00	)+
Total distributions		(0.13	)		(0.10	)		0.00		(0.26	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	9.45		$	9.78		$	8.82	$	6.82
Total Return (%)		(2.13	)		12.16			29.33		(29.20	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)(c)(d)		0.62			0.63			0.66		0.70	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(d)(e)		0.62			0.63			0.65		0.65	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)(f)		1.60			1.85			2.19		6.70	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		7.2			6.4			5.9		12.1
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	4,079.5		$	3,568.7		$	1,998.3	$	545.4

* Annualized.

+ Distributions from net realized capital gains were less than $0.01.

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Commencement of operations was 4/28/2008.

(c) See Note 3 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

(d) The ratio of operating expenses to average net assets does not include expenses of the Underlying Portfolios in which the Portfolio invests.

(e) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

(f) Recognition of net investment income by the Portfolio is affected by the timing of the declaration of dividends by the Underlying Portfolios in which it invests.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Balanced Allocation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is American Funds^® Balanced Allocation Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class B and C Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

The Portfolio is designed on established principles of asset allocation to achieve a specific risk profile. The Portfolio will invest substantially all of its assets in certain funds of the American Funds Insurance Series (“AFIS”) (“Underlying Portfolios”). AFIS is an open-end diversified investment management company advised by Capital Research and Management Company (“CRMC”), an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of The Capital Group Companies, Inc.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Valuation - Investments in the Underlying Portfolios are valued at their closing daily net asset value. The net asset value of the Portfolio is calculated based on the net asset values of the Underlying Portfolios in which the Portfolio invests. For information about the use of fair value pricing by the Underlying Portfolios that are funds of AFIS, please refer to the prospectus of the Underlying Portfolios.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - The Portfolio’s security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date. Interest income is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Capital gains distributions received from the Underlying Portfolios are recorded as net realized gain in the Statement of Operations.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to short-term capital gain distributions received from underlying portfolios, deferred trustees’ compensation, and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc. The Trust has entered into a management agreement (the “Management Agreement”) with the Adviser for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Balanced Allocation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year  ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$2,393,423		0.100	%	First $500 Million
		0.075	%	$500 Million to $1 Billion
		0.050	%	Over $1 Billion

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Expense Limitation Agreement - The Adviser had entered into an expense limitation agreement with the Trust (“Expense Limitation Agreement”) in the interest of limiting expenses of the Portfolio. The Expense Limitation Agreement continued in effect with respect to the Portfolio until April 30, 2011. Pursuant to that Expense Limitation Agreement, the Adviser had agreed to waive or limit its fees and to assume other expenses so that the total annual operating expenses of the Portfolio other than interest, taxes, brokerage commissions, other expenditures which were capitalized or expensed in accordance with GAAP, other extraordinary expenses not incurred in the ordinary course of the Portfolio’s business and Underlying Portfolios’ fees and expenses but including amounts payable pursuant to a plan adopted in accordance with Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act, were limited to the following expense ratios as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets:

Maximum Expense Ratio under current        Expense  Limitation Agreement
Class B	Class C
0.35%		0.65	%

If in any year in which the Management Agreement is still in effect, the estimated aggregate operating expenses of the Portfolio for the fiscal year are less than the Maximum Expense Ratios for that year, subject to approval by the Trust’s Board, the Adviser shall be entitled to reimbursement by the Portfolio to the extent that the charge does not cause the expenses in such subsequent year to exceed the Maximum Expense Ratios as stated above. The Portfolio is not obligated to repay any expense paid by the Adviser more than five years after the end of the fiscal year in which such expense was incurred.

Effective May 1, 2011, there was no longer an expense cap for the Portfolio.

Distribution Agreements and Plans - The Trust has distribution agreements with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class B and Class C Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B and Class C distribution plans provide that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% and 1.00%, respectively, of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class C Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B and Class C Shares. However, under the Class B and Class C distribution agreements, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B and Class C distribution plans are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% and 0.55% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class C Shares, respectively. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B and Class C distribution plans and distribution agreements, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B and Class C Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Balanced Allocation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$—	$	982,907,766	$	—	$	291,603,691

5. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Underlying Portfolios invest in securities and enter into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Underlying Portfolios may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Underlying Portfolios; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Underlying Portfolios may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Underlying Portfolios have unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Underlying Portfolios to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio and in the Underlying Portfolios in which it invests.

7. Transactions in Securities of Underlying Portfolios

The Portfolio does not invest in the Underlying Portfolios for the purpose of exercising control; however, investments by the Portfolio within its principal investment strategies may represent a significant portion of the Underlying Portfolio’s net assets. Transactions in the Underlying Portfolios during the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Underlying Portfolio (Class 1)	Number of shares held at December 31, 2010		Shares purchased		Shares sold			Number of shares held at December 31, 2011
American Funds Bond Fund*		25,335,425		16,379,611		(3,209,649	)		38,505,387
American Funds Global Bond Fund*		5,827,554		1,618,728		(438,926	)		7,007,356
American Funds Global Small Capitalization Fund*		5,224,176		1,889,818		(300,945	)		6,813,049
American Funds Growth Fund*		14,901,512		2,897,952		(1,841,401	)		15,958,063
American Funds Growth-Income Fund*		37,360,737		7,346,939		(1,567,407	)		43,140,269
American Funds High-Income Bond Fund*		15,965,927		4,342,387		(349,562	)		19,958,752
American Funds International Fund*		16,098,692		5,326,573		(737,330	)		20,687,935
American Funds New World Fund*		4,731,497		1,399,244		(152,026	)		5,978,715
American Funds U.S. Government/AAA - Rated Securities Fund*		34,623,726		12,257,765		(4,554,999	)		42,326,492

* The Portfolio had ownership of at least 25% of the outstanding voting securities of the Underlying Portfolio as of December 31, 2011. Once filed, the most recent Annual Report of the Underlying Portfolio will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http:// www.sec.gov.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Balanced Allocation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

7. Transactions in Securities of Underlying Portfolios - continued

Underlying Portfolio (Class 1)	Net Realized Gain on sales of Underlying Portfolios		Capital Gain Distributions from Underlying Portfolios		Dividends from Underlying Portfolios		Ending Value as of December 31, 2011
American Funds Bond Fund	$	4,029,320	$	—	$	13,685,557	$	423,174,208
American Funds Global Bond Fund		861,711		456,776		2,528,046		83,807,976
American Funds Global Small Capitalization Fund		2,868,262		—		1,870,763		117,797,623
American Funds Growth Fund		21,226,176		—		7,566,885		830,936,363
American Funds Growth-Income Fund		4,557,333		—		26,743,240		1,435,276,762
American Funds High-Income Bond Fund		1,014,846		—		16,718,938		210,365,242
American Funds International Fund		843,284		—		7,019,736		314,663,484
American Funds New World Fund		528,707		—		2,488,081		117,481,745
American Funds U.S. Government/AAA - Rated Securities Fund		4,209,364		13,220,641		10,955,364		550,244,397
	$	40,139,003	$	13,677,417	$	89,576,610	$	4,083,747,800

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gains				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$50,868,480	$	27,956,598	$	2,239,514	$	668,475	$	53,107,994	$	28,625,073

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized  Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards		Total
$73,049,845	$	44,324,555	$	263,133,112	$	—	$	380,507,512

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses. At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not have any capital loss carryforward.

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Balanced Allocation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements - continued

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Balanced Allocation Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of American Funds^® Balanced Allocation Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of American Funds^® Balanced Allocation Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”), as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the transfer agent. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of American Funds^® Balanced Allocation Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 28, 2012

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Balanced Allocation Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹ As the Adviser has the day-to-day responsibility for managing the American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio’s investments, the Board only approved an Advisory Agreement with respect to the American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio.

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Balanced Allocation Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

The Board considered that an Investment Committee, consisting of investment professionals from across MetLife, meets at least quarterly to review the asset allocations and discuss the performance of the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds and the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio.

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the one-year period ended June 30, 2011, and outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and underperformed its Lipper Index for the three- year period June 30, 2011. The Board also considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Dow Jones Moderate Index, for the one- and three- year periods ended September 30, 2011. The Board also took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance, including the impact of current market conditions. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s overall performance was adequate.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Balanced Allocation Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the Expense Group median and the Expense Universe median. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fee was below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Adviser had reduced its advisory fee through the implementation of additional breakpoints, which became effective on November 12, 2009. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory fee is consistent with industry norms and is fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Balanced Allocation Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

With respect to the American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, the Board noted that management had previously implemented breakpoints with respect to the Portfolio’s advisory fee that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified levels. The Board considered that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as the Portfolio’s assets increase. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s management fee is below the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

In addition, the Board reviewed the advisory fee to be paid to the Adviser for the American Funds of Funds and concluded that the advisory fee to be paid to the Adviser with respect to the Portfolios is based on services to be provided that are in addition to, rather than duplicative of, the services provided pursuant to the advisory agreements for the underlying funds in which the Portfolios invest and that the additional services are necessary because of the differences between the investment policies, strategies and techniques of the Portfolios and those of the underlying funds.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

22

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust American Funds^® Bond Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Bond Portfolio

For the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had a return of 5.79% for Class C versus 7.84% for its benchmark, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index¹.

American Funds^® Bond Portfolio managed by

MetLife Advisers, LLC vs. Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		5 Year3		10 Year3
American Funds® Bond Portfolio—Class C		5.79%		3.16%		4.42%
Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index1		7.84%		6.50%		5.78%

¹The Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index is a broad-based benchmark that measures the investment grade, U.S. dollar-denominated, fixed-rate taxable bond market, including Treasuries, government-related and corporate securities, mortgage-backed securities, asset-backed securities, and commercial mortgage-backed securities.

²“Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

³The Portfolio and its corresponding Master Fund have essentially the same investment objectives, policies, and strategies. Since the Portfolio commenced operations on April 28, 2008, the five year and ten year returns disclosed in the table above are based on the performance of the Master Fund adjusted to reflect for the Portfolio’s expenses. Similarly, the historical performance shown in the line graph above for periods prior to April 28, 2008 is the performance of the Master Fund, adjusted to reflect the Portfolio’s expenses.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Bond Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class C(a)
Actual		0.78%	$	1,000.00	$	1,033.90	$	4.00
Hypothetical*		0.78%		1,000.00		1,021.27		3.97

*   Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

**  Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

(a) The annualized expense ratio reflects the expenses of both the Portfolio and the Master Fund in which it invests.

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Bond Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Mutual Fund—100.1% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Investment Company Security—100.1%
American Funds Bond Fund (Class 1)(a) (Cost—$453,764,156)		42,981,878	$	472,370,840
Total Investments—100.1% (Cost $453,764,156#)				472,370,840
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(0.1)%				(287,798	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	472,083,042

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $454,093,517. The aggregate and net unrealized appreciation of investments was $18,277,323 for federal income tax purposes.

(a) A Fund of the American Funds Insurance Series.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Bond Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Finanical Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Mutual Fund
Investment Company Security	$	472,370,840	$	—	$	—	$	472,370,840
Total Investments	$	472,370,840	$	—	$	—	$	472,370,840

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Bond Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Affiliated investments at value (a)	$	472,370,840
Receivable for shares sold		48,190
Total assets		472,419,030
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased from Master Fund		25,810
Shares redeemed		22,380
Accrued Expenses:
Distribution and service fees - Class C		218,794
Administration fees		2,000
Custodian and accounting fees		2,067
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		39,870
Total liabilities		335,988
Net Assets	$	472,083,042
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	438,902,766
Accumulated net realized gain		2,099,483
Unrealized appreciation on investments		18,606,684
Undistributed net investment income		12,474,109
Net Assets	$	472,083,042
Net Assets
Class C	$	472,083,042
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class C		45,573,975
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class C	$	10.36

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of affiliated investments was $453,764,156.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends from Master Fund	$	15,125,182
Total investment income		15,125,182
Expenses
Administration fees		24,000
Custodian and accounting fees		17,900
Distribution and service fees - Class C		2,443,461
Audit and tax services		24,536
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Shareholder reporting		34,623
Insurance		1,256
Miscellaneous		20,282
Total expenses		2,634,768
Net investment income		12,490,414
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Affiliated Investments
Net realized gain on affiliated investments		2,347,333
Net change in unrealized appreciation on affiliated investments		10,524,418
Net realized and unrealized gain on affiliated investments		12,871,751
Net Increase in Net Assets from Operations	$	25,362,165

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Bond Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	12,490,414		$	9,375,610
Net realized gain (loss) on affiliated investments		2,347,333			(125,783	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation on affiliated investments		10,524,418			4,708,196
Net increase in net assets resulting from operations		25,362,165			13,958,023
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class C		(9,384,282	)		(4,626,851	)
From net realized capital gains
Class C		(599	)		—
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(9,384,881	)		(4,626,851	)
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		82,412,435			172,947,428
Net Increase in Net Assets		98,389,719			182,278,600
Net assets at beginning of period		373,693,323			191,414,723
Net assets at end of period	$	472,083,042		$	373,693,323
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	12,474,109		$	9,367,977

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class C
Sales		15,112,842		$	152,560,059			21,616,614		$	214,536,466
Reinvestments		947,968			9,384,881			477,980			4,626,851
Redemptions		(7,823,489	)		(79,532,505	)		(4,648,640	)		(46,215,889	)
Net increase		8,237,321		$	82,412,435			17,445,954		$	172,947,428
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	82,412,435					$	172,947,428

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Bond Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class C
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.01		$	9.62		$	8.58		$	10.00
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations:
Net investment income(a)		0.29			0.33			0.41			0.87
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		0.28			0.25			0.63			(1.83	)
Total from investment operations		0.57			0.58			1.04			(0.96	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.22	)		(0.19	)		(0.00	)+		(0.46	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00	++		0.00			0.00			0.00
Total distributions		(0.22	)		(0.19	)		(0.00	)+		(0.46	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.36		$	10.01		$	9.62		$	8.58
Total Return (%)		5.79			6.10			12.12			(9.61	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.59			0.65			0.69			1.05	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)		0.59			0.65			0.65			0.65	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.81			3.34			4.42			13.82	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		8.0			2.1			0.5			6.3
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	472.1		$	373.7		$	191.4		$	36.1

* Annualized.

+ Distributions from net investment income were less than $0.01.

++ Distributions from net realized capital gains were less than $0.01.

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Commencement of operations was 4/28/2008.

(c) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is American Funds^® Bond Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class C Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio.

The Portfolio, a feeder fund, seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing all of its investable assets in a master fund, the Bond Fund (the “Master Fund”), a fund of the American Funds Insurance Series (“AFIS”). AFIS is an open-end diversified investment management company advised by Capital Research and Management Company (“CRMC”), an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of The Capital Group Companies, Inc. The financial statements of the Master Fund accompany the Portfolio’s financial statements and should be read in conjunction with the Portfolio’s financial statements. As of December 31, 2011, the Portfolio owned approximately 5.06% of the Master Fund.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Valuation - Investments in the Master Fund are valued at its closing daily net asset value. The net asset value of the Portfolio is calculated based on the net asset value of the Master Fund in which the Portfolio invests. For information about the use of fair value pricing by the Master Fund, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements for the Master Fund.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - The Portfolio’s security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date. Interest income is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to deferred trustees’ compensation, and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser selects the Master Fund in which the Portfolio will invest and monitors the Master Fund investment program. The Adviser is an affiliate of MetLife. The Adviser currently receives no compensation for its services to the Portfolio. In the event that the Portfolio were to withdraw from the Master Fund and invest its assets directly in investment securities, the Adviser would retain the services of an investment subadviser and would receive a management fee at an annual rate of percentage of the assets of the Portfolio as follows:

% per annum	Average Daily Net Assets
0.55%	ALL

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Expense Limitation Agreement - The Adviser had entered into an expense limitation agreement with the Trust (“Expense Limitation Agreement”) in the interest of limiting expenses of the Portfolio. The Expense Limitation Agreement continued in effect with respect to the Portfolio until April 30, 2011. Pursuant to that Expense Limitation Agreement, the Adviser had agreed to waive or limit its fees and to assume other expenses so that the total annual operating expenses of the Portfolio other than interest, taxes, brokerage commissions, other expenditures which were capitalized or expensed in accordance with GAAP, other extraordinary expenses not incurred in the ordinary course of the Portfolio’s business, and Master Fund fees and expenses but including amounts payable pursuant to a plan adopted in accordance with Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act, were limited to the following expense ratio as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets:

Maximum Expense Ratio under current
Expense Limitation Agreement

Class C

0.65%

If in any year in which the Management Agreement is still in effect, the estimated aggregate operating expenses of the Portfolio for the fiscal year are less than the Maximum Expense Ratio for that year, subject to approval by the Trust’s Board, the Adviser shall be entitled to reimbursement by the Portfolio to the extent that the charge does not cause the expenses in such subsequent year to exceed the Maximum Expense Ratio as stated above. The Portfolio is not obligated to repay any expense paid by the Adviser more than five years after the end of the fiscal year in which such expense was incurred.

Effective May 1, 2011, there was no longer an expense cap for the Portfolio.

Distribution Agreement and Plan - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class C Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class C distribution plan provides that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 1.00% of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class C Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class C Shares. However, under the Class C distribution agreement, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class C distribution plan are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.55% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class C Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class C distribution plan and distribution agreement, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class C Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment in the Master Fund for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases		Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government	U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government
$—	$120,798,953	$—	$35,219,514

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Master Fund invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Master Fund may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Master Fund; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Master Fund may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Master Fund has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Master Fund to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio and in the Master Fund in which it invests.

7. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gains				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$9,384,282	$	4,626,851	$	599	$	—	$	9,384,881	$	4,626,851

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized  Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards		Total
$12,499,176	$	2,428,844	$	18,277,323	$	—	$	33,205,343

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses. At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not have any capital loss carryforwards.

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements - continued

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Bond Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of American Funds^® Bond Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of American Funds^® Bond Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the transfer agent. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of American Funds^® Bond Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 28, 2012

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Bond Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the American Funds Bond Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹ With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, a “feeder fund” that invests all of its assets in an American Funds Insurance Series “master fund,” a stand-by Advisory Agreement was approved at the November 7-8, 2011 meeting for the American Funds Bond Portfolio in the event it no longer invests all of its assets in its American Funds Insurance Series master fund.

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Bond Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the American Funds Bond Portfolio’s performance, the Board took into account that the Portfolio is a “feeder fund” and all of its assets are invested in a “master fund,” a series of the American Funds Insurance Series, which in turn purchases investment securities. Among other information relating to the Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and Lipper Index for the one- and three- year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board also considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index, for the one-, three- and five- year periods ended September 30, 2011. The Board also took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance, including the impact of current market conditions, as well as any actions taken to address the Portfolio’s performance. The Board also took into account the peer group used for comparative purposes. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s performance was being reasonably addressed and/or monitored.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Bond Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees), which reflected the expenses of the underlying master fund, were equal to the Expense Group median and above the Expense Universe median. The Board noted that the Portfolio does not currently pay an advisory fee under the stand-by Advisory Agreement and will not do so in the future unless the Portfolio no longer invests its assets in a master fund. The Board noted, however, that the Portfolio’s contractual management fee under the stand-by Advisory Agreement would be above the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s expenses, including the peer group in which the Portfolio was placed for the Lipper report. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory fee under the stand-by Advisory Agreement is consistent with industry norms and is fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Bond Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee under the stand-by Advisory Agreement does not contain breakpoints. The Board noted, however, that the Portfolio’s management fee is below the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board considered the effect of the Portfolio’s current size and potential growth on its performance and fees. The Board noted management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s advisory fee structure. The Board also noted that if the Portfolio’s assets increased over time, the Portfolio might realize other economies of scale if assets increased proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses. The Board concluded that adding breakpoints to the advisory fee at specified asset levels was not appropriate given the Portfolio’s current size and the fact that the Portfolio is not currently paying the advisory fee. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio was reasonable and appropriate.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

19

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust American Funds^® Growth Allocation Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Allocation Portfolio

Managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class B and C shares of the American Funds^® Growth Allocation Portfolio returned -4.41% and -4.73%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Dow Jones Moderately Aggressive Index¹, returned -2.63%.

Economic and Market Review

Economic and political unrest around the world caused sudden and often sharp shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. As a result, riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit based bonds were extremely volatile throughout the year. Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates. Below investment grade bonds experienced a sharp sell-off during the third quarter as investors feared that the European credit crisis might spread and derail the already fragile global economic recovery, but high yield bonds recovered fully in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a tepid, but respectable 5.0% total return. Foreign bonds had similar returns as domestic bonds; although differences in exchange rates produced variations in the returns of bonds from different countries.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to concerns about the economy and global events. After producing a modest return of 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the full year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Smaller domestic stocks, as measured by the Russell 2000 Index, were down 4.2% for the year. Growth style stocks performed modestly better than value style stocks. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis. Stocks in Europe were hurt by both a drop in prices and a stronger dollar, which made these stocks less valuable to the dollar based investors.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

The American Funds^® Growth Allocation Portfolio invested all of its assets in funds of the American Funds Insurance Series (AFIS). The Portfolio’s broad asset allocation goal of 15% to fixed income and 85% to equities did not change during the period. Although the Allocation Portfolio does not have an explicit goal for a money market fund, its underlying portfolios typically hold cash positions of 5% to 10% to give the portfolio counselors the liquidity and flexibility to exploit investment opportunities when they become available. For the equity portfolios, holding cash produced mixed results during 2011: it hurt performance in the first and fourth quarters when stocks produced strong returns, but it dampened losses in the middle quarters when stocks suffered declines. Overall, the underlying portfolios’ weak security selection and sector positioning hurt relative performance.

On both a relative and absolute basis, the two domestic equity underlying portfolios detracted modestly from the Portfolio’s overall performance. The AFIS Growth-Income Fund was hurt by its selection in the Financial Services and Information Technology sectors. In particular, they held an overweight position in the Bank of America, which was down nearly 60% for the year and an underweight to Apple, which was up about 25% and was among the largest components within the market. The AFIS Growth Fund’s absolute performance was hurt by its nearly 20% position in foreign securities, which trailed domestic stocks during 2011. As might be expected with a fund with a growth focus, the fund held an underweight to a more defensive sector like Consumer Staples and an overweight to a sector more tied to a strong and growing economy such as Materials. This positioning generally detracted from relative performance. Selection in the Energy sector hurt performance; most notable was energy producer Pacific Rubiales Energy Corporation, which has operations in Canada and South America.

Within the Portfolio’s foreign equity portfolios, exposure to smaller companies and stocks from emerging markets detracted from performance as most investors shunned risk. The Portfolio’s largest foreign holding, the AFIS International Fund, trailed the broad foreign equity markets due to sector and regional positioning as well as security selection. The fund’s biggest individual detractors were European Financial Services companies Erste Bank (Austria), Lloyds Banking Group, and Credit Suisse.

The super safe AFIS U.S. Government / AAA - Rated Securities Fund performed better than the broad bond markets as investors shunned credit risk. The Portfolio’s other underlying fixed income funds hurt absolute performance as high yield and foreign bonds trailed high quality domestic fixed income securities.

Investment Committee

MetLife Advisers, LLC

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio and market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are as December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions. MetLife Advisers undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statements) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation, or country diversification (or that of the underlying portfolios used in the Portfolio) is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Allocation Portfolio

Managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
American Funds Growth-Income Fund (Class 1)		42.2
American Funds Growth Fund (Class 1)		29.6
American Funds International Fund (Class 1)		10.4
American Funds New World Fund (Class 1)		3.8
American Funds Global Small Capitalization Fund (Class 1)		3.8
American Funds High-Income Bond Fund (Class 1)		3.1
American Funds Bond Fund (Class 1)		3.1
American Funds U.S. Government/AAA - Rated Securities Fund (Class 1)		3.1
American Funds Global Bond Fund (Class 1)		1.0

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Allocation Portfolio

American Funds^® Growth Allocation Portfolio managed by

MetLife Advisers, LLC vs. Dow Jones Moderately Aggressive Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		Since Inception3
American Funds® Growth Allocation Portfolio—Class B		-4.41%		-1.57%
Class C		-4.73%		-1.94%
Dow Jones Moderately Aggressive Index1		-2.63%		0.66%

The performance of Class B shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other class because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹ The Dow Jones Moderately Aggressive Index is a total returns index designed to provide asset allocation strategists with a target risk benchmark. Each month, the index adjusts its weightings of stocks, bonds, and cash indices (both domestic and foreign) from Barclays and Dow Jones such that the risk of the combination will have 80% of the risk of an all equity portfolio.

² “Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

³ Inception of the Class B and Class C shares is 4/28/2008. Index returns are based on an inception date of 4/28/2008.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less that their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Allocation Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class B(a)
Actual		0.53%	$	1,000.00	$	914.80	$	2.56
Hypothetical*		0.53%		1,000.00		1,022.53		2.70
Class C(a)
Actual		0.83%	$	1,000.00	$	913.20	$	4.00
Hypothetical*		0.83%		1,000.00		1,021.02		4.23

*   Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

**  Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

(a) The annualized expense ratio reflects the expenses of both the Portfolio and the Underlying Portfolios in which it invests.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Mutual Funds—100.1% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Investment Company Securities—100.1% of Net Assets
American Funds Bond Fund (Class 1)(a)		6,318,510	$	69,440,423
American Funds Global Bond Fund (Class 1)(a)		1,919,999		22,963,187
American Funds Global Small Capitalization Fund (Class 1)(a)		4,868,093		84,169,331
American Funds Growth Fund (Class 1)(a)		12,771,091		664,990,732
American Funds Growth-Income Fund (Class 1)(a)		28,444,539		946,349,802
American Funds High-Income Bond Fund (Class 1)(a)		6,650,652		70,097,873
American Funds International Fund (Class 1)(a)		15,328,383		233,144,714
American Funds New World Fund (Class 1)(a)		4,313,561		84,761,473
American Funds U.S. Government /AAA-Rated Securities Fund (Class 1)(a)		5,339,627		69,415,148
Total Mutual Funds (Cost $1,878,772,211)				2,245,332,683
Total Investments—100.1% (Cost $1,878,772,211#)				2,245,332,683
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(0.1)%				(1,255,297	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	2,244,077,386

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $1,963,831,159. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $282,147,576 and $(646,052), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $281,501,524 for federal income tax purposes.

(a) A Portfolio of the American Funds Insurance Series. (See Note 7 to Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in securities of Underlying Portfolios.)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Mutual Funds
Investment Company Securities	$	2,245,332,683	$	—	$	—	$	2,245,332,683
Total Investments	$	2,245,332,683	$	—	$	—	$	2,245,332,683

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Allocation Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Affiliated investments at value (a)	$	2,245,332,683
Receivable for investments sold		461,237
Receivable for shares sold		218,965
Total assets		2,246,012,885
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		1,714
Shares redeemed		678,489
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		126,968
Distribution and service fees - Class B		1,431
Distribution and service fees - Class C		1,043,164
Administration fees		2,000
Custodian and accounting fees		2,067
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		54,599
Total liabilities		1,935,499
Net Assets	$	2,244,077,386
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	1,933,813,133
Accumulated net realized loss		(85,136,427	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments		366,560,472
Undistributed net investment income		28,840,208
Net Assets	$	2,244,077,386
Net Assets
Class B	$	6,805,891
Class C		2,237,271,495
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class B		773,622
Class C		256,230,224
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class B	$	8.80
Class C		8.73

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of affiliated investments was $1,878,772,211.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios	$	42,547,539
Total investment income		42,547,539
Expenses
Management fees		1,562,253
Administration fees		24,000
Custodian and accounting fees		24,800
Distribution and service fees - Class B		15,221
Distribution and service fees - Class C		13,026,298
Audit and tax services		24,536
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Shareholder reporting		51,552
Insurance		20,562
Miscellaneous		13,553
Total expenses		14,831,485
Net investment income		27,716,054
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Affiliated Investments
Net realized gain on:
Affiliated investments		7,409,464
Capital gain distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		1,936,663
Net realized gain on affiliated investments and capital gain distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		9,346,127
Net change in unrealized depreciation on affiliated investments		(152,537,054	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on affiliated investments		(143,190,927	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(115,474,873	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Allocation Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	27,716,054		$	25,977,019
Net realized gain (loss) on affiliated investments and capital gain distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		9,346,127			(35,144,287	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on affiliated investments		(152,537,054	)		279,171,418
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations		(115,474,873	)		270,004,150
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class B		(81,239	)		(34,493	)
Class C		(26,206,292	)		(18,431,724	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(26,287,531	)		(18,466,217	)
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		20,296,547			172,637,913
Net Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets		(121,465,857	)		424,175,846
Net assets at beginning of period		2,365,543,243			1,941,367,397
Net assets at end of period	$	2,244,077,386		$	2,365,543,243
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	28,840,208		$	26,269,951

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class B
Sales		243,308		$	2,217,557			279,068		$	2,340,705
Reinvestments		8,384			81,239			3,946			34,493
Redemptions		(25,318	)		(232,445	)		(31,125	)		(258,457	)
Net increase		226,374		$	2,066,351			251,889		$	2,116,741
Class C
Sales		29,807,550		$	276,740,361			48,200,287		$	406,945,507
Reinvestments		2,718,495			26,206,292			2,118,589			18,431,724
Redemptions		(31,145,935	)		(284,716,457	)		(31,002,510	)		(254,856,059	)
Net increase		1,380,110		$	18,230,196			19,316,366		$	170,521,172
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	20,296,547					$	172,637,913

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Allocation Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	9.33		$	8.29		$	6.17		$	10.00
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.16			0.16			0.13			0.14
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.56	)		0.98			1.99			(3.69	)
Total from investment operations		(0.40	)		1.14			2.12			(3.55	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.13	)		(0.10	)		(0.00	)+		(0.28	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.00	)++
Total distributions		(0.13	)		(0.10	)		(0.00	)+		(0.28	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	8.80		$	9.33		$	8.29		$	6.17
Total Return (%)		(4.41	)		13.78			34.36			(35.45	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)(c)(d)		0.33			0.34			0.36			0.65	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(d)(e)		0.33			0.34			0.35			0.35	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)(f)		1.70			1.90			1.81			2.37	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		8.1			13.0			7.4			4.6
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	6.8		$	5.1		$	2.4		$	0.7

	Class C
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	9.26		$	8.23		$	6.14		$	10.00
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations:
Net investment income(a)		0.11			0.10			0.09			0.23
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.54	)		1.00			2.00			(3.81	)
Total from investment operations		(0.43	)		1.10			2.09			(3.58	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.10	)		(0.07	)		(0.00	)+		(0.28	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.00	)++
Total distributions		(0.10	)		(0.07	)		(0.00	)+		(0.28	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	8.73		$	9.26		$	8.23		$	6.14
Total Return (%)		(4.73	)		13.48			34.04			(35.78	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)(c)(d)		0.63			0.64			0.66			0.70	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(d)(e)		0.63			0.64			0.65			0.65	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)(f)		1.17			1.25			1.27			4.65	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		8.1			13.0			7.4			4.6
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	2,237.3		$	2,360.4		$	1,938.9		$	785.5

* Annualized.

+ Distributions from net investment income were less than $0.01.

++ Distributions from net realized capital gains were less than $0.01.

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Commencement of operations was 4/28/2008.

(c) See Note 3 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

(d) The ratio of operating expenses to average net assets does not include expenses of the Underlying Portfolios in which the Portfolio invests.

(e) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

(f) Recognition of net investment income by the Portfolio is affected by the timing of the declaration of dividends by the Underlying Portfolios in which it invests.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Allocation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is American Funds^® Growth Allocation Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class B and C Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

The Portfolio is designed on established principles of asset allocation to achieve a specific risk profile. The Portfolio will invest substantially all of its assets in certain funds of the American Funds Insurance Series (“AFIS”) (“Underlying Portfolios”). AFIS is an open-end diversified investment management company advised by Capital Research and Management Company (“CRMC”), an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of The Capital Group Companies, Inc.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Valuation - Investments in the Underlying Portfolios are valued at their closing daily net asset value. The net asset value of the Portfolio is calculated based on the net asset values of the Underlying Portfolios in which the Portfolio invests. For information about the use of fair value pricing by the Underlying Portfolios that are funds of AFIS, please refer to the prospectus of the Underlying Portfolios.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - The Portfolio’s security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date. Interest income is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Capital gains distributions received from the Underlying Portfolios are recorded as net realized gain in the Statement of Operations.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to short-term capital gain distributions received from underlying portfolios, deferred trustees’ compensation, capital loss carryforwards and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc. The Trust has entered into a management agreement (the “Management Agreement”) with the Adviser for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Allocation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year  ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$1,562,253		0.100	%	First $500 Million
		0.075	%	$500 Million to $1 Billion
		0.050	%	Over $1 Billion

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Expense Limitation Agreement - The Adviser had entered into an expense limitation agreement with the Trust (“Expense Limitation Agreement”) in the interest of limiting expenses of the Portfolio. The Expense Limitation Agreement continued in effect with respect to the Portfolio until April 30, 2011. Pursuant to that Expense Limitation Agreement, the Adviser had agreed to waive or limit its fees and to assume other expenses so that the total annual operating expenses of the Portfolio other than interest, taxes, brokerage commissions, other expenditures which were capitalized or expensed in accordance with GAAP, other extraordinary expenses not incurred in the ordinary course of the Portfolio’s business, and Underlying Portfolios’ fees and expenses but including amounts payable pursuant to a plan adopted in accordance with Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act, were limited to the following expense ratios as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets:

Maximum Expense Ratio under current Expense Limitation  Agreement
Class B	Class C
0.35%		0.65	%

If in any year in which the Management Agreement is still in effect, the estimated aggregate operating expenses of the Portfolio for the fiscal year are less than the Maximum Expense Ratios for that year, subject to approval by the Trust’s Board, the Adviser shall be entitled to reimbursement by the Portfolio to the extent that the charge does not cause the expenses in such subsequent year to exceed the Maximum Expense Ratios as stated above. The Portfolio is not obligated to repay any expense paid by the Adviser more than five years after the end of the fiscal year in which such expense was incurred.

Effective May 1, 2011, there was no longer an expense cap for the Portfolio.

Distribution Agreements and Plans - The Trust has distribution agreements with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class B and Class C Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B and Class C distribution plans provide that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% and 1.00% respectively, of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class C Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B and Class C Shares. However, under the Class B and Class C distribution agreements, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B and Class C distribution plans are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% and 0.55% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class C Shares, respectively. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and services fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B and Class C distribution plans and distribution agreements, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B and Class C Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Allocation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases		Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government	U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government
$—	$217,345,662	$—	$193,705,295

5. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Underlying Portfolios invest in securities and enter into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Underlying Portfolios may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Underlying Portfolios; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Underlying Portfolios may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Underlying Portfolios have unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Underlying Portfolios to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio and in the Underlying Portfolios in which it invests.

7. Transactions in Securities of Underlying Portfolios

The Portfolio does not invest in the Underlying Portfolios for the purpose of exercising control; however, investments by the Portfolio within its principal investment strategies may represent a significant portion of the Underlying Portfolio’s net assets. Transactions in the Underlying Portfolios during the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Underlying Portfolio (Class 1)	Number of shares held at December 31, 2010		Shares purchased		Shares sold			Number of shares held at December 31, 2011
American Funds Bond Fund		6,162,320		1,263,945		(1,107,755	)		6,318,510
American Funds Global Bond Fund		1,892,446		312,917		(285,364	)		1,919,999
American Funds Global Small Capitalization Fund*		4,568,726		643,218		(343,851	)		4,868,093
American Funds Growth Fund		13,295,860		704,399		(1,229,168	)		12,771,091
American Funds Growth-Income Fund*		27,788,284		2,413,221		(1,756,966	)		28,444,539
American Funds High-Income Bond Fund		6,267,891		926,631		(543,870	)		6,650,652
American Funds International Fund		14,503,678		1,722,976		(898,271	)		15,328,383
American Funds New World Fund*		4,135,402		382,821		(204,662	)		4,313,561
American Funds U.S. Government/AAA - Rated Securities Fund		5,180,433		1,230,633		(1,071,439	)		5,339,627

* The Portfolio had ownership of at least 25% of the outstanding voting securities of the Underlying Portfolio as of December 31, 2011. Once filed, the most recent Annual Report of the Underlying Portfolio will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http:// www.sec.gov.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Allocation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

7. Transactions in Securities of Underlying Portfolios - continued

Underlying Portfolio (Class 1)	Net Realized Gain/(Loss) on sales of Underlying Portfolios			Capital Gain Distributions from Underlying Portfolios		Dividends from Underlying Portfolios		Ending Value as of December 31, 2011
American Funds Bond Fund	$	1,325,177		$	—	$	2,274,120	$	69,440,423
American Funds Global Bond Fund		390,996			134,867		702,034		22,963,187
American Funds Global Small Capitalization Fund		1,207,995			—		1,449,589		84,169,331
American Funds Growth Fund		5,185,982			—		6,178,430		664,990,732
American Funds Growth-Income Fund		(2,237,263	)		—		17,796,065		946,349,802
American Funds High-Income Bond Fund		172,219			—		5,629,826		70,097,873
American Funds International Fund		435,559			—		5,277,758		233,144,714
American Funds New World Fund		289,551			—		1,841,824		84,761,473
American Funds U.S. Government/AAA - Rated Securities Fund		639,248			1,801,796		1,397,893		69,415,148
	$	7,409,464		$	1,936,663	$	42,547,539	$	2,245,332,683

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gains				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$26,287,531	$	18,466,217	$	—	$	—	$	26,287,531	$	18,466,217

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards			Total
$28,865,275	$	—	$	281,501,524	$	(77,479	)	$	310,289,320

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses.

As of December 31, 2011, the post-enactment accumulated capital losses were $0 and the pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards and expiration dates were as follows:

Expiring 12/31/2018		Total
$	77,479	$	77,479

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Allocation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements - continued

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Allocation Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of American Funds^® Growth Allocation Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of American Funds^® Growth Allocation Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”), as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the transfer agent. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of American Funds^® Growth Allocation Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 28, 2012

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Allocation Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹ As the Adviser has the day-to-day responsibility for managing the American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio’s investments, the Board only approved an Advisory Agreement with respect to the American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio.

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Allocation Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

The Board considered that an Investment Committee, consisting of investment professionals from across MetLife, meets at least quarterly to review the asset allocations and discuss the performance of the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds and the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio.

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the one- and three- year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Dow Jones Moderately Aggressive Index, for the one- and three- year periods ended September 30, 2011. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance, including the impact of current market conditions. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s moderate underperformance was being reasonably addressed and/or monitored.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Allocation Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees were below the Expense Group median and above the Expense Universe median, and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the Expense Group median and equal to the Expense Universe median. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Adviser reduced its advisory fee through the implementation of additional breakpoints, effective November 12, 2009. The Board also took into account management’s discussion of the Fund’s expenses. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory fee is consistent with industry norms and is fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Allocation Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

With respect to the American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, the Board noted that management had previously implemented breakpoints with respect to the Portfolio’s advisory fee that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified levels. The Board considered that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as the Portfolio’s assets increase. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s management fee is above the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

In addition, the Board reviewed the advisory fee to be paid to the Adviser for the American Funds of Funds and concluded that the advisory fee to be paid to the Adviser with respect to the Portfolios is based on services to be provided that are in addition to, rather than duplicative of, the services provided pursuant to the advisory agreements for the underlying funds in which the Portfolios invest and that the additional services are necessary because of the differences between the investment policies, strategies and techniques of the Portfolios and those of the underlying funds.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

22

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust American Funds^® Growth Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Portfolio

For the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had a return of -4.60% for Class C versus 2.11% for its benchmark, the S&P 500 Index¹.

American Funds^® Growth Portfolio managed by

MetLife Advisers, LLC vs. S&P 500 Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		5 Year3		10 Year3
American Funds® Growth Portfolio—Class C		-4.60%		-0.47%		3.55%
S&P 500 Index1		2.11%		-0.25%		2.92%

¹The S&P 500 Index is an unmanaged index consisting of 500 stocks chosen for market size, liquidity, and industry group representation. It is a market-weighted index (stock price times number of shares outstanding) with each stock’s weight in the Index proportionate to its market value.

² “Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

³ The Portfolio and its corresponding Master Fund have essentially the same investment objectives, policies, and strategies. Since the Portfolio commenced operations on April 28, 2008, the five year and ten year returns disclosed in the table above are based on the performance of the Master Fund adjusted to reflect for the Portfolio’s expenses. Similarly, the historical performance shown in the line graph above for periods prior to April 28, 2008 is the performance of the Master Fund, adjusted to reflect the Portfolio’s expenses.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class C(a)
Actual		0.74%	$	1,000.00	$	901.60	$	3.55
Hypothetical*		0.74%		1,000.00		1,021.47		3.77

*   Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

**  Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

(a) The annualized expense ratio reflects the expenses of both the Portfolio and the Master Fund in which it invests.

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Mutual Fund—100.1% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Investment Company Security—100.1%
American Funds Growth Fund (Class 1)(a) (Cost—$789,666,277)		17,022,565	$	886,364,980
Total Investments—100.1% (Cost $789,666,277#)				886,364,980
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(0.1)%				(477,389	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	885,887,591

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $796,104,351. The aggregate and net unrealized appreciation of investments was $90,260,629 for federal income tax purposes.

(a) A Fund of the American Funds Insurance Series.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Mutual Fund
Investment Company Security	$	886,364,980	$	—	$	—	$	886,364,980
Total Investments	$	886,364,980	$	—	$	—	$	886,364,980

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Affiliated investments at value (a)	$	886,364,980
Receivable for shares sold		142,998
Total assets		886,507,978
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased from Master Fund		64,816
Shares redeemed		78,182
Accrued Expenses:
Distribution and service fees - Class C		412,548
Administration fees		2,000
Custodian and accounting fees		2,067
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		35,707
Total liabilities		620,387
Net Assets	$	885,887,591
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	792,365,613
Accumulated net realized loss		(6,198,073	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments		96,698,703
Undistributed net investment income		3,021,348
Net Assets	$	885,887,591
Net Assets
Class C	$	885,887,591
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class C		101,875,781
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class C	$	8.70

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of affiliated investments was $789,666,277.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends from Master Fund	$	8,035,665
Total investment income		8,035,665
Expenses
Administration fees		24,000
Custodian and accounting fees		18,500
Distribution and service fees - Class C		4,807,773
Audit and tax services		24,536
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Shareholder reporting		46,745
Insurance		3,745
Miscellaneous		3,981
Total expenses		4,997,990
Net investment income		3,037,675
Net Realized and Unrealized Loss on Affiliated Investments
Net realized loss on affiliated investments		(637,347	)
Net change in unrealized depreciation on affiliated investments		(50,397,133	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on affiliated investments		(51,034,480	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(47,996,805	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	3,037,675		$	3,027,280
Net realized loss on affiliated investments		(637,347	)		(3,077,314	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on affiliated investments		(50,397,133	)		103,865,174
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations		(47,996,805	)		103,815,140
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class C		(3,035,823	)		(1,032,359	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(3,035,823	)		(1,032,359	)
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		188,768,063			297,112,894
Net Increase in Net Assets		137,735,435			399,895,675
Net assets at beginning of period		748,152,156			348,256,481
Net assets at end of period	$	885,887,591		$	748,152,156
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	3,021,348		$	3,019,496

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class C
Sales		29,737,226		$	276,624,546			42,988,090		$	346,057,831
Reinvestments		309,778			3,035,823			123,340			1,032,359
Redemptions		(9,975,914	)		(90,892,306	)		(6,262,176	)		(49,977,296	)
Net increase		20,071,090		$	188,768,063			36,849,254		$	297,112,894
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	188,768,063					$	297,112,894

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class C
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009		2008(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	9.15		$	7.75		$	5.58	$	10.00
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations:
Net investment income(a)		0.03			0.05			0.04		0.15
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.45	)		1.37			2.13		(4.34	)
Total from investment operations		(0.42	)		1.42			2.17		(4.19	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.03	)		(0.02	)		0.00		(0.23	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00		0.00
Total distributions		(0.03	)		(0.02	)		0.00		(0.23	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	8.70		$	9.15		$	7.75	$	5.58
Total Return (%)		(4.60	)		18.33			38.89		(41.84	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.57			0.59			0.65		0.92	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)		0.57			0.59			0.65		0.65	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.35			0.59			0.55		3.09	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		2.9			1.5			1.4		0.2
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	885.9		$	748.2		$	348.3	$	68.5

* Annualized.

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Commencement of operations was 4/28/2008.

(c) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is American Funds^® Growth Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class C Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio.

The Portfolio, a feeder fund, seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing all of its investable assets in a master fund, the Growth Fund (the “Master Fund”), a fund of the American Funds Insurance Series (“AFIS”). AFIS is an open-end diversified investment management company advised by Capital Research and Management Company (“CRMC”), an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of The Capital Group Companies, Inc. The financial statements of the Master Fund accompany the Portfolio’s financial statements and should be read in conjunction with the Portfolio’s financial statements. As of December 31, 2011, the Portfolio owned approximately 3.64% of the Master Fund.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Valuation - Investments in the Master Fund are valued at its closing daily net asset value. The net asset value of the Portfolio is calculated based on the net asset value of the Master Fund in which the Portfolio invests. For information about the use of fair value pricing by the Master Fund, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements for the Master Fund.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - The Portfolio’s security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date. Interest income is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to deferred trustees’ compensation, and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser selects the Master Fund in which the Portfolio will invest and monitors the Master Fund investment program. The Adviser is an affiliate of MetLife. The Adviser currently receives no compensation for its services to the Portfolio. In the event that the Portfolio were to withdraw from the Master Fund and invest its assets directly in investment securities, the Adviser would retain the services of an investment subadviser and would receive a management fee at an annual rate of percentage of the assets of the Portfolio as follows:

% per annum	Average Daily Net Assets
0.75%	ALL

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Expense Limitation Agreement - The Adviser had entered into an expense limitation agreement with the Trust (“Expense Limitation Agreement”) in the interest of limiting expenses of the Portfolio. The Expense Limitation Agreement continued in effect with respect to the Portfolio until April 30, 2011. Pursuant to that Expense Limitation Agreement, the Adviser had agreed to waive or limit its fees and to assume other expenses so that the total annual operating expenses of the Portfolio other than interest, taxes, brokerage commissions, other expenditures which were capitalized or expensed in accordance with GAAP, other extraordinary expenses not incurred in the ordinary course of the Portfolio’s business and Master Fund fees and expenses but including amounts payable pursuant to a plan adopted in accordance with Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act, were limited to the following expense ratio as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets:

Maximum Expense Ratio under current
Expense Limitation  Agreement

Class C

0.65%

If in any year in which the Management Agreement is still in effect, the estimated aggregate operating expenses of the Portfolio for the fiscal year are less than the Maximum Expense Ratio for that year, subject to approval by the Trust’s Board, the Adviser shall be entitled to reimbursement by the Portfolio to the extent that the charge does not cause the expenses in such subsequent year to exceed the Maximum Expense Ratio as stated above. The Portfolio is not obligated to repay any expense paid by the Adviser more than five years after the end of the fiscal year in which such expense was incurred.

Effective May 1, 2011, there was no longer an expense cap for the Portfolio.

Distribution Agreement and Plan - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class C Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class C distribution plan provides that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 1.00% of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class C Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class C Shares. However, under the Class C distribution agreement, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class C distribution plan are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.55% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class C Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class C distribution plan and distribution agreement, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class C Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment in the Master Fund for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$—	$	214,065,255	$	—	$	25,212,153

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Master Fund invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Master Fund may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Master Fund; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Master Fund may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Master Fund has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Master Fund to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio and in the Master Fund in which it invests.

7. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gains				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$3,035,823	$	1,032,359	$	—	$	—	$	3,035,823	$	1,032,359

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards		Total
$3,046,415	$	240,001	$	90,260,629	$	—	$	93,547,045

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses. At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not have any capital loss carryforwards.

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements - continued

inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of American Funds^® Growth Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of American Funds^® Growth Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”), as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the transfer agent. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of American Funds^® Growth Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 28, 2012

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the American Funds Growth Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹ With respect to the American Funds Growth Portfolio, a “feeder fund” that invests all of its assets in an American Funds Insurance Series “master fund,” a stand-by Advisory Agreement was approved at the November 7-8, 2011 meeting for the American Funds Growth Portfolio in the event it no longer invests all of its assets in its American Funds Insurance Series master fund.

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the American Funds Growth Portfolio’s performance, the Board took into account that the Portfolio is a “feeder fund” and all of its assets are invested in a “master fund,” a series of the American Funds Insurance Series, which in turn purchases investment securities. Among other information relating to the Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and Lipper Index for the one- and three- year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the S&P 500 Index, for the one-year period ended September 30, 2011, and outperformed its benchmark for the three- year period ended September 30, 2011. The Board also took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance, including the impact of current market conditions. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s performance was being reasonably addressed and/or monitored.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the American Funds Growth Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees), which reflected the expenses of the underlying master fund, were below the Expense Group median and the Expense Universe median. The Board noted that the Portfolio does not currently pay an advisory fee under the stand-by Advisory Agreement and will not do so in the future unless the Portfolio no longer invests its assets in a master fund. The Board noted, however, that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees under the stand-by Advisory Agreement would be above the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory fee under the stand-by Advisory Agreement is consistent with industry norms and is fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

With respect to the American Funds Growth Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee under the stand-by Advisory Agreement does not contain breakpoints. The Board noted, however, that the Portfolio’s management fee is below the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board considered the effect of the Portfolio’s current size and potential growth on its performance and fees. The Board noted management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s advisory fee structure. The Board also noted that if the Portfolio’s assets increased over time, the Portfolio might realize other economies of scale if assets increased proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses. The Board concluded that adding breakpoints to the advisory fee at specified asset levels was not appropriate given the Portfolio’s current size and the fact that the Portfolio is not currently paying the advisory fee. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio was reasonable and appropriate.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

19

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust American Funds^® International Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® International Portfolio

For the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had a return of -14.28% for Class C versus -13.71% and -12.14% for its benchmarks, the MSCI AC World (ex-U.S.) Index¹ and MSCI EAFE Index², respectively.

American Funds^® International Portfolio managed by

MetLife Advisers, LLC vs. MSCI AC World (ex-U.S.) Index¹

and MSCI EAFE Index²

	Average Annual Return3 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		5 Year4		10 Year4
American Funds® International Portfolio—Class C		-14.28%		-2.13%		5.69%
MSCI AC World (ex-U.S.) Index1		-13.71%		-2.92%		6.31%
MSCI EAFE Index2		-12.14%		-4.72%		4.67%

¹The MSCI AC World (ex-U.S.) Index (net) is an unmanaged free float-adjusted market capitalization index that is designed to measure equity market performance in the global developed and emerging markets, excluding the United States. The index returns shown above were calculated with net dividends: they reflect the reinvestment of dividends after the deduction of the maximum possible withholding taxes.

² The MSCI Europe, Australasia and Far East Index (“MSCI EAFE Index”) is an unmanaged free float-adjusted market capitalization index that is designed to measure developed market equity performance, excluding the U.S. and Canada. The index returns shown above were calculated with net dividends: they reflect the reinvestment of dividends after the deduction of the maximum possible withholding taxes.

³ “Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

⁴ The Portfolio and its corresponding Master Fund have essentially the same investment objectives, policies, and strategies. Since the Portfolio commenced operations on April 28, 2008, the five year and ten year returns disclosed in the table above are based on the performance of the Master Fund adjusted to reflect for the Portfolio’s expenses. Similarly, the historical performance shown in the line graph above for periods prior to April 28, 2008 is the performance of the Master Fund, adjusted to reflect the Portfolio’s expenses.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The indexes do not include fees or expenses and are not available for direct investment.

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® International Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class C(a)
Actual		0.89%	$	1,000.00	$	822.60	$	4.09
Hypothetical*		0.89%		1,000.00		1,020.71		4.53

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

(a) The annualized expense ratio reflects the expenses of both the Portfolio and the Master Fund in which it invests.

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® International Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Mutual Fund—100.1% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Investment Company Security—100.1%
American Funds International Fund (Class 1)(a) (Cost—$338,155,369)		21,544,987	$	327,699,246
Total Investments—100.1% (Cost $338,155,369#)				327,699,246
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(0.1)%				(226,409	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	327,472,837

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $346,800,698. The aggregate and net unrealized depreciation of investments was $(19,101,452), for federal income tax purpose.

(a) A Fund of the American Funds Insurance Series.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® International Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Mutual Fund
Investment Company Security	$	327,699,246	$	—	$	—	$	327,699,246
Total Investments	$	327,699,246	$	—	$	—	$	327,699,246

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® International Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Affiliated investments at value (a)	$	327,699,246
Receivable for shares sold		96,838
Total assets		327,796,084
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased from Master Fund		87,301
Shares redeemed		9,537
Accrued Expenses:
Distribution and service fees - Class C		153,644
Administration fees		2,000
Custodian and accounting fees		2,067
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		43,631
Total liabilities		323,247
Net Assets	$	327,472,837
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	341,291,975
Accumulated net realized loss		(8,652,332	)
Unrealized depreciation on investments		(10,456,123	)
Undistributed net investment income		5,289,317
Net Assets	$	327,472,837
Net Assets
Class C	$	327,472,837
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class C		45,008,745
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class C	$	7.28

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of affiliated investments was $338,155,369.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends from Master Fund	$	7,409,982
Total investment income		7,409,982
Expenses
Administration fees		24,000
Custodian and accounting fees		24,800
Distribution and service fees - Class C		1,909,048
Audit and tax services		24,536
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Shareholder reporting		34,201
Insurance		1,370
Miscellaneous		17,686
Total expenses		2,104,351
Net investment income		5,305,631
Net Realized and Unrealized Loss on Affiliated Investments
Net realized loss on affiliated investments		(1,850,158	)
Net change in unrealized depreciation on affiliated investments		(57,198,512	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on affiliated investments		(59,048,670	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(53,743,039	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® International Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	5,305,631		$	5,000,860
Net realized loss on affiliated investments		(1,850,158	)		(3,475,107	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on affiliated investments		(57,198,512	)		21,707,122
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations		(53,743,039	)		23,232,875
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class C		(5,009,625	)		(1,949,151	)
From net realized capital gains
Class C		—			(612,678	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(5,009,625	)		(2,561,829	)
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		49,650,748			121,540,328
Net Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets		(9,101,916	)		142,211,374
Net assets at beginning of period		336,574,753			194,363,379
Net assets at end of period	$	327,472,837		$	336,574,753
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	5,289,317		$	4,993,311

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class C
Sales		12,494,567		$	103,169,653			18,670,412		$	147,916,770
Reinvestments		556,625			5,009,625			316,666			2,561,829
Redemptions		(7,154,011	)		(58,528,530	)		(3,752,239	)		(28,938,271	)
Net increase		5,897,181		$	49,650,748			15,234,839		$	121,540,328
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	49,650,748					$	121,540,328

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® International Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class C
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	8.61		$	8.14		$	5.71		$	10.00
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations:
Net investment income(a)		0.12			0.16			0.12			0.31
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(1.33	)		0.40			2.31			(4.20	)
Total from investment operations		(1.21	)		0.56			2.43			(3.89	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.12	)		(0.07	)		0.00			(0.40	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			(0.02	)		(0.00	)+		(0.00	)+
Total distributions		(0.12	)		(0.09	)		(0.00	)		(0.40	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	7.28		$	8.61		$	8.14		$	5.71
Total Return (%)		(14.28	)		6.89			42.56			(38.86	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.61			0.65			0.68			0.85	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)		0.61			0.65			0.65			0.65	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.53			1.97			1.66			6.43	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		10.2			3.0			2.5			7.9
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	327.5		$	336.6		$	194.4		$	54.7

* Annualized.

+ Distributions from net realized capital gains were less than $0.01.

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Commencement of operations was 4/28/2008.

(c) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® International Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is American Funds^® International Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class C Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio.

The Portfolio, a feeder fund, seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing all of its investable assets in a master fund, the International Fund (the “Master Fund”), a fund of the American Funds Insurance Series (“AFIS”). AFIS is an open-end diversified investment management company advised by Capital Research and Management Company (“CRMC”), an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of The Capital Group Companies, Inc. The financial statements of the Master Fund accompany the Portfolio’s financial statements and should be read in conjunction with the Portfolio’s financial statements. As of December 31, 2011, the Portfolio owned approximately 3.83% of the Master Fund.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Valuation - Investments in the Master Fund are valued at its closing daily net asset value. The net asset value of the Portfolio is calculated based on the net asset value of the Master Fund in which the Portfolio invests. For information about the use of fair value pricing by the Master Fund, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements for the Master Fund.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - The Portfolio’s security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date. Interest income is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to deferred trustees’ compensation, and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser selects the Master Fund in which the Portfolio will invest and monitors the Master Fund investment program. The Adviser is an affiliate of MetLife. The Adviser currently receives no compensation for its services to the Portfolio. In the event that the Portfolio were to withdraw from the Master Fund and invest its assets directly in investment securities, the Adviser would retain the services of an investment subadviser and would receive a management fee at an annual rate of percentage of the assets of the Portfolio as follows:

% per annum	Average Daily Net Assets
0.90%	ALL

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® International Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Expense Limitation Agreement - The Adviser had entered into an expense limitation agreement with the Trust (“Expense Limitation Agreement”) in the interest of limiting expenses of the Portfolio. The Expense Limitation Agreement continued in effect with respect to the Portfolio until April 30, 2011. Pursuant to that Expense Limitation Agreement, the Adviser had agreed to waive or limit its fees and to assume other expenses so that the total annual operating expenses of the Portfolio other than interest, taxes, brokerage commissions, other expenditures which were capitalized or expensed in accordance with GAAP, other extraordinary expenses not incurred in the ordinary course of the Portfolio’s business and Master Fund fees and expenses but including amounts payable pursuant to a plan adopted in accordance with Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act, were limited to the following expense ratio as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets:

Maximum Expense Ratio under current
Expense Limitation  Agreement

Class C

0.65%

If in any year in which the Management Agreement is still in effect, the estimated aggregate operating expenses of the Portfolio for the fiscal year are less than the Maximum Expense Ratio for that year, subject to approval by the Trust’s Board, the Adviser shall be entitled to reimbursement by the Portfolio to the extent that the charge does not cause the expenses in such subsequent year to exceed the Maximum Expense Ratio as stated above. The Portfolio is not obligated to repay any expense paid by the Adviser more than five years after the end of the fiscal year in which such expense was incurred.

Effective May 1, 2011, there was no longer an expense cap for the Portfolio.

Distribution Agreement and Plan - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class C Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class C distribution plan provides that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 1.00% of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class C Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class C Shares. However, under the Class C distribution agreement, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class C distribution plan are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.55% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class C Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class C distribution plan and distribution agreement, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class C Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment in the Master Fund for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases		Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government	U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government
$—	$85,916,455	$—	$35,944,199

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® International Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Master Fund invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Master Fund may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Master Fund; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Master Fund may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Master Fund has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Master Fund to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio and in the Master Fund in which it invests.

7. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gains				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$5,009,625	$	1,949,179	$	—	$	612,650	$	5,009,625	$	2,561,829

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Depreciation			Loss Carryforwards			Total
$5,314,384	$	—	$	(19,101,452	)	$	(7,003	)	$	(13,794,071	)

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses.

As of December 31, 2011, the post-enactment accumulated capital losses were $7,003.

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® International Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements - continued

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® International Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of American Funds^® International Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of American Funds^® International Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”), as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the transfer agent. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of American Funds^® International Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 28, 2012

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® International Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the American Funds International Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹ With respect to the American Funds International Portfolio, a “feeder fund” that invests all of its assets in an American Funds Insurance Series “master fund,” a stand-by Advisory Agreement was approved at the November 7-8, 2011 meeting for the American Funds International Portfolio in the event it no longer invests all of its assets in its American Funds Insurance Series master fund.

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® International Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the American Funds International Portfolio’s performance, the Board took into account that the Portfolio is a “feeder fund” and all of its assets are invested in a “master fund,” a series of the American Funds Insurance Series, which in turn purchases investment securities. Among other information relating to the Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and Lipper Index for the one-year period ended June 30, 2011 and outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and Lipper Index for the three- year period ended June 30, 2011. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Morgan Stanley Capital International AC World (ex U.S.) Index, for the one- and three- year periods ended September 30, 2011. The Board also took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s overall performance was adequate.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® International Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the American Funds International Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees), which reflected the expenses of the underlying master fund, were below the Expense Group median and above the Expense Universe median. The Board noted that the Portfolio does not currently pay an advisory fee under the stand-by Advisory Agreement and will not do so in the future unless the Portfolio no longer invests its assets in a master fund. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees under the stand-by Advisory Agreement would be above the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also took into account management’s discussion of the Fund’s expenses. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory fee under the stand-by Advisory Agreement is consistent with industry norms and is fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® International Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

With respect to the American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee under the stand-by Advisory Agreement does not contain breakpoints. The Board noted, however, that the Portfolio’s management fee is below the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board considered the effect of the Portfolio’s current size and potential growth on its performance and fees. The Board noted management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s advisory fee structure. The Board also noted that if the Portfolio’s assets increased over time, the Portfolio might realize other economies of scale if assets increased proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses. The Board concluded that adding breakpoints to the advisory fee at specified asset levels was not appropriate given the Portfolio’s current size and the fact that the Portfolio is not currently paying the advisory fee. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio was reasonable and appropriate.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

19

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust American Funds^® Moderate Allocation Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Moderate Allocation Portfolio

Managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class B and C shares of the American Funds^® Moderate Allocation Portfolio returned 0.44% and 0.19%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Dow Jones Moderate Index¹, returned 0.28%.

Economic and Market Review

Economic and political unrest around the world caused sudden and often sharp shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. As a result, riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit based bonds were extremely volatile throughout the year. Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates. Below investment grade bonds experienced a sharp sell-off during the third quarter as investors feared that the European credit crisis might spread and derail the already fragile global economic recovery, but high yield bonds recovered fully in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a tepid, but respectable 5.0% total return. Foreign bonds had similar returns as domestic bonds; although differences in exchange rates produced variations in the returns of bonds from different countries.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to concerns about the economy and global events. After producing a modest return of 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the full year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Smaller domestic stocks, as measured by the Russell 2000 Index, were down 4.2% for the year. Growth style stocks performed modestly better than value style stocks. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis. Stocks in Europe were hurt by both a drop in prices and a stronger dollar, which made these stocks less valuable to the dollar based investors.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

The American Funds^® Moderate Allocation Portfolio invested all its assets in funds of the American Funds Insurance Series (AFIS). The Portfolio’s broad asset allocation goal of 50% to fixed income and 50% to equities did not change during the period. Although the Allocation Portfolio does not have an explicit goal for a money market fund, its underlying portfolios typically hold cash positions of 5% to 10% to give the portfolio counselors the liquidity and flexibility to exploit investment opportunities when they become available. For the equity portfolios, holding cash produced mixed results during 2011: it hurt performance in the first and fourth quarters when stocks produced strong returns, but it dampened losses in the middle quarters when stocks suffered declines. Overall, the underlying portfolios’ weak security selection and sector positioning hurt relative performance.

On both a relative and absolute basis, the two domestic equity underlying portfolios detracted modestly from the Portfolio’s overall performance. The AFIS Growth-Income Fund was hurt by its selection in the Financial Services and Information Technology sectors. In particular, they held an overweight position in the Bank of America, which was down nearly 60% for the year and an underweight to Apple, which was up about 25% and was among the largest components within the market. The AFIS Growth Fund’s absolute performance was hurt by its nearly 20% position in foreign securities, which trailed domestic stocks during 2011. As might be expected with a fund with a growth focus, the fund held an underweight to a more defensive sector like Consumer Staples and an overweight to a sector more tied to a strong and growing economy such as Materials. This positioning generally detracted from relative performance. Selection in the Energy sector hurt performance; most notable was energy producer Pacific Rubiales Energy Corporation, which has operations in Canada and South America.

Within the Portfolio’s foreign equity portfolios, exposure to smaller companies and stocks from emerging markets detracted from performance as most investors shunned risk. The Portfolio’s largest foreign holding, the AFIS International Fund, trailed the broad foreign equity markets due to sector and regional positioning as well as security selection. The fund’s biggest individual detractors were European Financial Services companies Erste Bank (Austria), Lloyds Banking Group, and Credit Suisse.

The super safe AFIS U.S. Government / AAA - Rated Securities Fund performed better than the broad bond markets as investors shunned credit risk. The Portfolio’s other underlying fixed income funds hurt absolute performance as high yield and foreign bonds trailed high quality domestic fixed income securities.

Investment Committee

MetLife Advisers, LLC

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio and market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are as December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions. MetLife Advisers undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statements) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation, or country diversification (or that of the underlying portfolios used in the Portfolio) is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Moderate Allocation Portfolio

Managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
American Funds Growth-Income Fund (Class 1)		30.3
American Funds U.S. Government/AAA - Rated Securities Fund (Class 1)		25.0
American Funds Bond Fund (Class 1)		17.7
American Funds Growth Fund (Class 1)		11.5
American Funds International Fund (Class 1)		7.6
American Funds High-Income Bond Fund (Class 1)		5.0
American Funds Global Bond Fund (Class 1)		1.0
American Funds New World Fund (Class 1)		1.0
American Funds Global Small Capitalization Fund (Class 1)		1.0

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Moderate Allocation Portfolio

American Funds^® Moderate Allocation Portfolio managed by

MetLife Advisers, LLC vs. Dow Jones Moderate Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		Since Inception3
American Funds® Moderate Allocation Portfolio—Class B		0.44%		1.73%
Class C		0.19%		1.45%
Dow Jones Moderate Index1		0.28%		2.09%

The performance of Class B shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other class because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹ The Dow Jones Moderate Index is a total returns index designed to provide asset allocation strategists with a target risk benchmark. Each month, the index adjusts its weighting of stocks, bonds, and cash indices (both domestic and foreign) from Barclays and Dow Jones such that the risk of that combination will have 60% of the risk of an all equity portfolio.

² “Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

³ Inception of the Class B and Class C shares is 4/28/2008. Index returns are based on an inception date of 4/28/2008.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Moderate Allocation Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class B(a)
Actual		0.50%	$	1,000.00	$	968.60	$	2.48
Hypothetical*		0.50%		1,000.00		1,022.68		2.55
Class C(a)
Actual		0.80%	$	1,000.00	$	967.50	$	3.97
Hypothetical*		0.80%		1,000.00		1,021.17		4.08

*   Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

**  Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

(a) The annualized expense ratio reflects the expenses of both the Portfolio and the Underlying Portfolios in which it invests.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Moderate Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Mutual Funds—100.1% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Investment Company Securities—100.1%
American Funds Bond Fund (Class 1)(a)		46,973,780	$	516,241,845
American Funds Global Bond Fund (Class 1)(a)		2,508,409		30,000,566
American Funds Global Small Capitalization Fund (Class 1)(a)		1,592,694		27,537,674
American Funds Growth Fund (Class 1)(a)		6,457,604		336,247,454
American Funds Growth-Income Fund (Class 1)(a)		26,540,154		882,990,942
American Funds High-Income Bond Fund (Class 1)(a)		13,900,854		146,514,999
American Funds International Fund (Class 1)(a)		14,548,686		221,285,512
American Funds New World Fund (Class 1)(a)		1,405,932		27,626,566
American Funds U.S. Government/AAA - Rated Securities Fund (Class 1)(a)		56,083,157		729,081,046
Total Mutual Funds (Cost $2,720,796,686)				2,917,526,604
Total Investments—100.1% (Cost $2,720,796,686#)				2,917,526,604
Other Assets And Liabilities (net)—(0.1)%				(1,588,008	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	2,915,938,596

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $2,752,344,281. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $212,041,254 and $(46,858,931), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $165,182,323 for federal income tax purposes.

(a) A Fund of the American Funds Insurance Series. (See Note 7 to Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in securities of Underlying Portfolios.)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Moderate Allocation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Mutual Funds
Investment Company Securities	$	2,917,526,604	$	—	$	—	$	2,917,526,604
Total Investments	$	2,917,526,604	$	—	$	—	$	2,917,526,604

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Moderate Allocation Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Affiliated investments at value (a)	$	2,917,526,604
Receivable for investments sold		190,934
Receivable for shares sold		325,308
Total assets		2,918,042,846
Liabilities
Due to custodian		1
Payables for:
Investments purchased		3,355
Shares redeemed		512,887
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		155,070
Distribution and service fees - Class B		587
Distribution and service fees - Class C		1,354,132
Administration fees		2,000
Custodian and accounting fees		2,067
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		49,084
Total liabilities		2,104,250
Net Assets	$	2,915,938,596
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	2,648,409,195
Accumulated net realized gain		8,916,782
Unrealized appreciation on investments		196,729,918
Undistributed net investment income		61,882,701
Net Assets	$	2,915,938,596
Net Assets
Class B	$	2,822,593
Class C		2,913,116,003
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class B		285,855
Class C		297,059,800
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class B	$	9.87
Class C		9.81

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of affiliated investments was $2,720,796,686.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios	$	68,979,300
Total investment income		68,979,300
Expenses
Management fees		1,803,324
Administration fees		24,000
Custodian and accounting fees		24,800
Distribution and service fees - Class B		5,583
Distribution and service fees - Class C		15,699,278
Audit and tax services		24,536
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,423
Shareholder reporting		56,155
Insurance		26,239
Miscellaneous		10,706
Total expenses		17,743,330
Net investment income		51,235,970
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Affiliated Investments
Net realized gain on:
Investments		35,306,652
Capital gain distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		17,123,191
Net realized gain on affiliated investments and capital gain distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		52,429,843
Net change in unrealized depreciation on affiliated investments		(106,317,624	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on affiliated investments		(53,887,781	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(2,651,811	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Moderate Allocation Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	51,235,970		$	41,714,893
Net realized gain on affiliated investments and capital gain distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		52,429,843			14,353,084
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on affiliated investments		(106,317,624	)		153,482,948
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations		(2,651,811	)		209,550,925
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class B		(36,179	)		(15,018	)
Class C		(44,037,355	)		(29,121,763	)
From net realized capital gains
Class B		(9,734	)		—
Class C		(13,804,258	)		—
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(57,887,526	)		(29,136,781	)
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		384,640,446			835,366,654
Net Increase in Net Assets		324,101,109			1,015,780,798
Net assets at beginning of period		2,591,837,487			1,576,056,689
Net assets at end of period	$	2,915,938,596		$	2,591,837,487
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	61,882,701		$	44,055,947

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class B
Sales		131,162		$	1,312,036			96,807		$	915,213
Reinvestments		4,514			45,913			1,571			15,018
Redemptions		(10,846	)		(108,985	)		(9,269	)		(87,696	)
Net increase		124,830		$	1,248,964			89,109		$	842,535
Class C
Sales		53,041,932		$	533,337,856			99,662,945		$	937,778,444
Reinvestments		5,715,575			57,841,613			3,059,009			29,121,763
Redemptions		(20,937,745	)		(207,787,987	)		(14,113,365	)		(132,376,088	)
Net increase		37,819,762		$	383,391,482			88,608,589		$	834,524,119
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	384,640,446					$	835,366,654

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Moderate Allocation Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009		2008(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.05		$	9.28		$	7.49	$	10.00
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.25			0.24			0.28		0.11
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.20	)		0.69			1.51		(2.34	)
Total from investment operations		0.05			0.93			1.79		(2.23	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.18	)		(0.16	)		0.00		(0.28	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.05	)		0.00			0.00		(0.00	)+
Total distributions		(0.23	)		(0.16	)		0.00		(0.28	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	9.87		$	10.05		$	9.28	$	7.49
Total Return (%)		0.44			10.15			23.90		(22.30	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)(c)(d)		0.32			0.34			0.37		0.85	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(d)(e)		0.32			0.34			0.35		0.35	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)(f)		2.51			2.56			3.32		1.75	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		6.5			7.3			13.6		12.8
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	2.8		$	1.6		$	0.7	$	0.1

	Class C
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009		2008(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	9.99		$	9.23		$	7.48	$	10.00
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations:
Net investment income (a)		0.18			0.19			0.24		0.49
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.15	)		0.72			1.51		(2.73	)
Total from investment operations		0.03			0.91			1.75		(2.24	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.16	)		(0.15	)		0.00		(0.28	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.05	)		0.00			0.00		(0.00	)+
Total distributions		(0.21	)		(0.15	)		0.00		(0.28	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	9.81		$	9.99		$	9.23	$	7.48
Total Return (%)		0.19			9.91			23.40		(22.40	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)(c)(d)		0.62			0.64			0.67		0.70	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(d)(e)		0.62			0.64			0.65		0.65	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)(f)		1.79			2.04			2.85		8.74	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		6.5			7.3			13.6		12.8
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	2,913.1		$	2,590.2		$	1,575.4	$	449.3

* Annualized.

+ Distributions from net realized capital gains were less than $0.01.

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Commencement of operations was 4/28/2008.

(c) See Note 3 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

(d) The ratio of operating expenses to average net assets does not include expenses of the Underlying Portfolios in which the Portfolio invests.

(e) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

(f) Recognition of net investment income by the Portfolio is affected by the timing of the declaration of dividends by the Underlying Portfolios in which it invests.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Moderate Allocation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is American Funds^® Moderate Allocation Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“Metlife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class B and C Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

The Portfolio is designed on established principles of asset allocation to achieve a specific risk profile. The Portfolio will invest substantially all of its assets in certain funds of the American Funds Insurance Series (“AFIS”) (“Underlying Portfolios”). AFIS is an open-end diversified investment management company advised by Capital Research and Management Company (“CRMC”), an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of The Capital Group Companies, Inc.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Valuation - Investments in the Underlying Portfolios are valued at their closing daily net asset value. The net asset value of the Portfolio is calculated based on the net asset values of the Underlying Portfolios in which the Portfolio invests. For information about the use of fair value pricing by the Underlying Portfolios that are funds of AFIS, please refer to the prospectus of the Underlying Portfolios.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - The Portfolio’s security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date. Interest income is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Capital gains distributions received from the Underlying Portfolios are recorded as net realized gain in the Statement of Operations.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to short-term capital gain distributions received from underlying portfolios, deferred trustees’ compensation, and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc. The Trust has entered into a management agreement (the “Management Agreement”) with the Adviser for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Moderate Allocation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$1,803,324		0.100	%	First $500 Million
		0.075	%	$500 Million to $1 Billion
		0.050	%	Over $1 Billion

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Expense Limitation Agreement - The Adviser had entered into an expense limitation agreement with the Trust (“Expense Limitation Agreement”) in the interest of limiting expenses of the Portfolio. The Expense Limitation Agreement continued in effect with respect to the Portfolio until April 30, 2011. Pursuant to that Expense Limitation Agreement, the Adviser had agreed to waive or limit its fees and to assume other expenses so that the total annual operating expenses of the Portfolio other than interest, taxes, brokerage commissions, other expenditures which were capitalized or expensed in accordance with GAAP, other extraordinary expenses not incurred in the ordinary course of the Portfolio’s business and Underlying Portfolios’ fees and expenses but including amounts payable pursuant to a plan adopted in accordance with Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act, were limited to the following expense ratios as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets:

Maximum Expense Ratio under current Expense Limitation Agreement
Class B	Class C
0.35%		0.65	%

If in any year in which the Management Agreement is still in effect, the estimated aggregate operating expenses of the Portfolio for the fiscal year are less than the Maximum Expense Ratios for that year, subject to approval by the Trust’s Board, the Adviser shall be entitled to reimbursement by the Portfolio to the extent that the charge does not cause the expenses in such subsequent year to exceed the Maximum Expense Ratios as stated above. The Portfolio is not obligated to repay any expense paid by the Adviser more than five years after the end of the fiscal year in which such expense was incurred.

Effective May 1, 2011, there was no longer an expense cap for the Portfolio.

Distribution Agreements and Plans - The Trust has distribution agreements with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class B and Class C Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B and Class C distribution plans provide that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% and 1.00%, respectively, of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class C Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B and Class C Shares. However, under the Class B and Class C distribution agreements, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B and Class C distribution plans are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% and 0.55% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class C Shares, respectively. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B and Class C distribution plans and distribution agreements, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B and Class C Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Moderate Allocation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$—	$	582,657,961	$	—	$	187,339,375

5. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Underlying Portfolios invest in securities and enter into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Underlying Portfolios may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Underlying Portfolios; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Underlying Portfolios may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Underlying Portfolios have unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Underlying Portfolios to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio and in the Underlying Portfolios in which it invests.

7. Transactions in Securities of Underlying Portfolios

The Portfolio does not invest in the Underlying Portfolios for the purpose of exercising control; however, investments by the Portfolio within its principal investment strategies may represent a significant portion of the Underlying Portfolio’s net assets. Transactions in the Underlying Portfolios during the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Underlying Portfolio (Class 1)	Number of Shares Held at December 31, 2010		Shares Purchased		Shares Sold			Number of Shares held at December 31, 2011
American Funds Bond Fund*		40,244,335		9,119,161		(2,389,716	)		46,973,780
American Funds Global Bond Fund		2,156,125		430,895		(78,611	)		2,508,409
American Funds Global Small Capitalization Fund		1,275,128		418,311		(100,745	)		1,592,694
American Funds Growth Fund		5,954,094		1,090,567		(587,057	)		6,457,604
American Funds Growth-Income Fund*		24,340,116		3,849,251		(1,649,213	)		26,540,154
American Funds High-Income Bond Fund*		11,762,064		2,641,803		(503,013	)		13,900,854
American Funds International Fund		8,883,596		5,873,380		(208,290	)		14,548,686
American Funds New World Fund		1,163,694		311,991		(69,753	)		1,405,932
American Funds U.S. Government/AAA - Rated Securities Fund*		49,749,851		10,384,840		(4,051,534	)		56,083,157

* The Portfolio had ownership of at least 25% of the outstanding voting securities of the Underlying Portfolio as of December 31, 2011. Once filed, the most recent Annual Report of the Underlying Portfolio will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http:// www.sec.gov.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Moderate Allocation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

7. Transactions in Securities of Underlying Portfolios - continued

Underlying Portfolio (Class 1)	Net Realized Gain/(Loss) on sales of Underlying Portfolios		Capital Gain Distributions from Underlying Portfolios		Dividends from Underlying Portfolios		Ending Value as of December 31, 2011
American Funds Bond Fund	$	780,273	$	—	$	16,600,371	$	516,241,845
American Funds Global Bond Fund		161,493		158,723		899,772		30,000,566
American Funds Global Small Capitalization Fund		1,137,152		—		433,826		27,537,674
American Funds Growth Fund		12,662,365		—		3,037,809		336,247,454
American Funds Growth-Income Fund		13,987,291		—		16,444,532		882,990,942
American Funds High-Income Bond Fund		1,581,198		—		11,628,777		146,514,999
American Funds International Fund		27,552		—		4,917,625		221,285,512
American Funds New World Fund		728,757		—		582,144		27,626,566
American Funds U.S. Government/AAA - Rated Securities Fund		4,240,571		16,964,468		14,434,444		729,081,046
	$	35,306,652	$	17,123,191	$	68,979,300	$	2,917,526,604

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gains				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$44,073,534	$	29,136,781	$	13,813,992	$	—	$	57,887,526	$	29,136,781

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards		Total
$61,907,768	$	40,464,377	$	165,182,323	$	—	$	267,554,468

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses. At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not have any capital loss carryforwards.

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Moderate Allocation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements - continued

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Moderate Allocation Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of American Funds^® Moderate Allocation Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of American Funds^® Moderate Allocation Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”), as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the transfer agent. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of American Funds^® Moderate Allocation Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 28, 2012

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Moderate Allocation Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹ As the Adviser has the day-to-day responsibility for managing the American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio’s investments, the Board only approved an Advisory Agreement with respect to the American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio.

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Moderate Allocation Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

The Board considered that an Investment Committee, consisting of investment professionals from across MetLife, meets at least quarterly to review the asset allocations and discuss the performance of the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds and the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio.

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the one-year period ended June 30, 2011, and underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and outperformed its Lipper Index for the three- year period ended June 30, 2011. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Dow Jones Moderate Index, for the one- and three- year periods ended September 30, 2011. The Board also took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance, including the impact of current market conditions. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s moderate underperformance was being reasonably addressed and/or monitored.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Moderate Allocation Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were equal to the Expense Group median and the Expense Universe median. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Adviser reduced its advisory fee through the implementation of additional breakpoints, effective November 12, 2009. The Board also took into account management’s discussion of expenses, including the peer group in which the Portfolio was placed for the Lipper report. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory fee is consistent with industry norms and is fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

American Funds^® Moderate Allocation Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

With respect to the American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio, the Board noted that management previously implemented breakpoints to the Portfolio’s advisory fee that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified levels. The Board considered that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as the Portfolio’s assets increase. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s management fee is above the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

In addition, the Board reviewed the advisory fee to be paid to the Adviser for the American Funds of Funds and concluded that the advisory fee to be paid to the Adviser with respect to the Portfolios is based on services to be provided that are in addition to, rather than duplicative of, the services provided pursuant to the advisory agreements for the underlying funds in which the Portfolios invest and that the additional services are necessary because of the differences between the investment policies, strategies and techniques of the Portfolios and those of the underlying funds.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

22

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio

Managed by AQR Capital Management, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

Since its May 2, 2011 effective date with the SEC, the Class B shares of the AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio returned 3.38%. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Dow Jones Moderate Index¹, returned -5.42%.

Market Environment/Conditions

Asset class performance in 2011 was largely beta-driven. Risky assets lost money and safe havens outperformed. The Eurozone was at the center of the crisis. In both stock and bond markets, the Eurozone periphery (“PIIGS” Countries) was the worst-performing region. Financials was also an underperformer among industries. Investors increasingly doubted the ability of certain European nations to meet their obligations. As a result, private financing of both Sovereigns and banks dwindled. The problems were worsened by the muddled policy response, which brought the entire Euro project into question. The financial problems spilled into the real economy, with economic data deteriorating in the second half of the year.

It may appear surprising that both Treasuries and gold were top performers in 2011, given that the former is traditionally thought of as a hedge against deflation and the latter is considered more of a hedge against inflation. It seems the market was worried about both tail scenarios, with the popular view seeing a near-term deflationary episode followed by inflation further down the road. In the context of the European crisis and the shrinking number of perceived “safe assets”, both gold and Treasuries were seen (rightly or wrongly) as credit-safe investments. As the crisis worsened in the final months of 2011 and U.S. Dollar liquidity became even more important than credit safety, Treasuries outperformed gold. G-4 country bond yields fell, due in part to large government purchases and private institutions de-risking their portfolios out of riskier assets.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio (“GRB” or the “Portfolio”) gained +3.4% for the period from May 2, 2011 to December 31, 2011. Returns for the three risk categories in the Portfolio were mixed since May 2, 2011, Fixed Income risk contributed +9.2% while Equity Risk detracted -5.7%. Inflation Risk was relatively flat (-0.1%) with positive contributions from TIPS (+3.3%) and negative contributions from Commodities (-3.4%). Since May 2, 2011, the Portfolio has outperformed its primary benchmark by 8.8%. The effectiveness of our investment philosophy was well-evidenced over this period as gains in fixed income and inflation-linked bonds more than made up for losses in the equity and commodity portions of the Portfolio. This would not be possible in a portfolio dominated by equity risk as is seen in many “balanced” (60/40) allocations. As volatility increased through July and August, GRB quickly reduced exposures in the equity and commodity markets which helped limit losses in those areas while our larger allocation to fixed income securities than the benchmarks helped drive returns.

Since May 2, 2011, total portfolio exposure has come down significantly from 259% at launch to 191% at year-end. This reduction was the result of exposure decreases in all asset classes. The largest exposure decrease was in Equities. Exposure decreased from 40% at May 2, 2011 to 22% at the end of 2011, a -44% change. Volatility increased significantly through August as European sovereign concerns weighed on the markets. Exposure to Global Inflation-Linked Bonds was reduced from 58% to 36% over the period, a -38% reduction. Commodity exposures were also significantly reduced from 22% at May 2, 2011 to 17% at the end of 2011, a -24% reduction. While Nominal Interest Rate Risk exposures were reduced, it was to a smaller extent than other assets. Further uncertainty in Europe and a weak German Bund auction drove much of the increase in volatility through November. Nominal Interest Rate exposure changed from 140% to 116% at year-end, a -17% reduction.

GRB’s portfolio management process adjusts exposures to each of the three risk categories using a proprietary risk forecasting model. The process seeks to realize a steady risk level in each of the Portfolio’s three categories and for the Portfolio as a whole. Our objective is to keep the Portfolio diversified not only across asset classes, but also through time—meaning that no single time period (such as the credit crisis of 2008) should have a disproportionate impact on the Portfolio’s long-term results. Our research suggests that this approach, in addition to broad diversification, has been effective in helping to protect the Portfolio in periods of market stress, and improves long term risk adjusted returns. Consistent with this process, the Portfolio’s aggregate exposures have been reduced significantly since May 2, 2011 (from 259% to 191%) as volatility remains elevated across most markets.

Brian Hurst, Principal;

Michael Mendelson, Principal;

Yao Hua Ooi, Vice President

AQR Capital Management, LLC

* This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio

Managed by AQR Capital Management, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Issuers

	% of Net Assets
U.S. Treasury Inflation Indexed Notes		17.9
France Government Bond OAT		17.4
United Kingdom Gilt Inflation Linked		8.4

Exposures by Asset Class*

	% of Net Assets
Global Developed Bonds		115.6
Global Inflation-Linked Bonds		36.0
Global Developed Equities		17.9
Commodities - Production Weighted		16.5
Global Emerging Equities		2.5
U.S. Mid Cap Equities		0.9
U.S. Small Cap Equities		0.8

* The percentages noted above are based on the notional amounts by asset class as a percentage of net assets.

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio

AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio managed by
AQR Capital Management, LLC vs. Dow Jones Moderate Index¹

	Cumulative Return2 (for the period ended 12/31/11)
	Since Effective Date3
AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio—Class B		3.38%
Dow Jones Moderate Index1		-5.42%

¹The Dow Jones Moderate Index is a total returns index designed to provide asset allocation strategists with a target risk benchmark. Each month, the index adjusts its weightings of stocks, bonds, and cash indices (both domestic and foreign) from Barclays and Dow Jones such that the risk of that combination will have 60% of the risk of an all equity portfolio.

²“Cumulative Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

³ SEC effective date of the Class B shares is 5/2/2011. Index returns are based on an effective date of 5/2/2011.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class B(a)(b)
Actual		1.16%	$	1,000.00	$	1,050.00	$	5.99
Hypothetical*		1.16%		1,000.00		1,019.35		5.90

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

(a) The annualized expense ratio shown reflects an expense limitation agreement between MetLife Advisers, LLC and the Portfolio as described in Note 4 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

(b) The annualized expense ratio reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 4 to the Financial Statements.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio

Consolidated^ Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—25.8% of Net Assets

Security Description	Par/Shares Amount($)†		Value
Sovereign—25.8%
France Government Bond OAT 1.600%, 07/25/15 (EUR) (b)		230,659,938	$	312,245,628
2.250%, 07/25/20 (EUR) (b)		98,807,013		137,515,647
United Kingdom Gilt Inflation Linked 1.875%, 11/22/22 (GBP) (b)		108,781,500		216,271,352
				666,032,627
Total Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities (Cost $688,589,727)				666,032,627
U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—17.9%
U.S. Treasury—17.9%
U.S. Treasury Inflation Indexed Notes 0.500%, 04/15/15 (b)		315,550,740		330,366,794
1.250%, 07/15/20 (b)		117,742,086		133,287,691
				463,654,485
Total U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies (Cost $460,462,216)				463,654,485
Short-Term Investments—91.3%
Mutual Funds—91.3%
BlackRock Liquidity Funds TempFund Portfolio, Class I 0.090% (a)		233,747,954		233,747,954
Dreyfus Treasury Cash Management Fund, Class I 0.010% (a)		945,223,219		945,223,219
State Street Institutional Liquid Reserves Fund, Class I 0.090% (a)		295		295
UBS Money Series - UBS Select Treasury Preferred Fund, Class I 0.010% (a)		1,178,970,434		1,178,970,434
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $2,357,941,902)				2,357,941,902
Total Investments—135.0% (Cost $3,506,993,845#)				3,487,629,014
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(35.0)%				(903,536,929	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	2,584,092,085

† Par amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $3,511,418,319. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $10,512,343 and $(34,301,648), respectively, resulting in net unrealized depreciation of $(23,789,305) for federal income tax purposes.

(a) Represents annualized seven-day yield as of December 31, 2011.

(b) All or a portion of the security was pledged as collateral against open reverse repurchase agreements. At December 31, 2011, the value of the securities pledged amounted to $1,129,687,112.

(EUR)— Euro

(GBP)— British Pound

^See Note 2 of the notes to financial statements.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio

Consolidated^ Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1			Level 2			Level 3		Total
Total Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities *	$	—		$	666,032,627		$	—	$	666,032,627
Total U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies *		—			463,654,485			—		463,654,485
Total Short-Term Investments *		2,357,941,902			—					2,357,941,902
Total Investments	$	2,357,941,902		$	1,129,687,112		$	—	$	3,487,629,014
Forward Contracts**
Forward Foreign Currency Contracts (Unrealized Appreciation)	$	—		$	420,017		$	—	$	420,017
Forward Foreign Currency Contracts (Unrealized Depreciation)		—			(51,277	)		—		(51,277	)
Total Forward Contracts	$	—		$	368,740		$		$	368,740
Futures Contracts**
Futures Contracts (Unrealized Appreciation)	$	38,876,837		$	—		$	—	$	38,876,837
Futures Contracts (Unrealized Depreciation)		(13,768,728	)		—			—		(13,768,728	)
Total Futures Contracts	$	25,108,109		$	—		$	—	$	25,108,109
Swap Contracts**
Swap Contracts at Value (Assets)	$	—		$	5,957,468		$	—	$	5,957,468
Swap Contracts at Value (Liabilities)		—			(221,824	)		—		(221,824	)
Total Swap Contracts	$	—		$	5,735,644		$	—	$	5,735,644

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

** Derivative instruments such as forwards, and futures contracts are valued on the unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the instrument. Swap contracts are presented at value.

^See Note 2 of the notes to financial statements.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio

Consolidated^ Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)	$	3,487,629,014
Cash		62,397,000
Cash denominated in foreign currencies (b)		14,752,249
Cash collateral (c)		116,445,004
Receivable for shares sold		16,087,353
Interest receivable		4,737,289
Variation margin on futures contracts		33,259,623
Swaps at market value		5,957,468
Unrealized appreciation on forward currency exchange contracts		420,017
Total assets		3,741,685,017
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		82,392
Cash collateral (d)		35,358,171
Reverse repurchase agreements		1,111,553,864
Shares redeemed		1,730
Variation margin on futures contracts		8,106,359
Unrealized depreciation on forward currency exchange contracts		51,277
Swaps at market value		221,824
Interest on reverse repurchase agreements		360,017
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		1,243,349
Distribution and service fees - Class B		500,368
Administration fees		9,985
Custodian and accounting fees		29,804
Deferred trustees’ fees		5,674
Other expenses		68,118
Total liabilities		1,157,592,932
Net Assets	$	2,584,092,085
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	2,553,705,696
Accumulated net realized loss		(411,038	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments, futures contracts, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		13,305,131
Undistributed net investment income		17,492,296
Net Assets	$	2,584,092,085
Net Assets
Class B	$	2,584,092,085
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class B		245,356,642
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class B	$	10.53

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments was $3,506,993,845.

(b) Identified cost of cash denominated in foreign currencies was $14,942,044.

(c) Identified cost of foreign cash collateral was $3,548,056.

(d) Identified cost of payable for foreign cash collateral was $18,311,084.

Consolidated^ Statement of Operations

For the Period Ended December 31, 2011*

Investment Income
Dividends	$	4,358
Interest (a)		8,023,452
Total investment income		8,027,810
Expenses
Management fees		4,654,605
Administration fees		40,432
Custodian and accounting fees		224,820
Distribution and service fees - Class B		1,835,514
Audit and tax services		76,125
Legal		92,726
Trustees’ fees and expenses		24,964
Interest expense		1,674,105
Shareholder reporting		50,381
Insurance		1,367
Organizational expense		1,300
Miscellaneous		10,990
Total expenses		8,687,329
Less management fee waiver		(246,925	)
Net expenses		8,440,404
Net investment loss		(412,594	)
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments, Futures Contracts, Swaps Contracts and Foreign Currency Transactions
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments		898,576
Futures contracts		13,017,773
Swap contracts		11,521,837
Foreign currency transactions		31,662,754
Net realized gain on investments, futures contracts, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		57,100,940
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on:
Investments		(19,364,831	)
Futures contracts		25,108,109
Swap contracts		5,735,644
Foreign currency transactions		1,826,209
Net change in unrealized appreciation on investments, futures contracts, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		13,305,131
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments, futures contracts, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		70,406,071
Net Increase in Net Assets from Operations	$	69,993,477

* Commencement of operations was 4/19/2011. Shares first became available to investors through certain separate accounts on the SEC effective date which was 5/2/2011.

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $2,000.

^See Note 2 of the notes to financial statements.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio

Consolidated^ Statement of Changes in Net Assets

	Period Ended December 31, 2011*
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment loss	$	(412,594	)
Net realized gain on investments, futures contracts, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		57,100,940
Net change in unrealized appreciation on investments, futures contracts, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		13,305,131
Net increase in net assets resulting from operations		69,993,477
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class B		(34,777,561	)
From net realized capital gains
Class B		(7,657,930	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(42,435,491	)
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		2,556,534,099
Net Increase in Net Assets		2,584,092,085
Net assets at end of period	$	2,584,092,085
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	17,492,296

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Period Ended December 31, 2011*
	Shares			Value
Class B
Sales		242,584,221		$	2,527,253,401
Reinvestments		4,049,188			42,435,491
Redemptions		(1,276,767	)		(13,154,793	)
Net increase		245,356,642		$	2,556,534,099
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	2,556,534,099

* Commencement of operations was 4/19/2011. Shares first became available to investors through certain separate accounts on the SEC effective date which was 5/2/2011.

^See Note 2 of the notes to financial statements.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio

Consolidated^ Statement of Cash Flows

For the Period Ended December 31, 2011*

Cash Flows From Operating Activities
Net Increase in net assets from operations	$	69,993,477
Adjustments to reconcile net increase in net assets from operations to net cash used in operating activities:
Investments purchased		(1,188,484,704	)
Proceeds from investments sold		44,011,713
Purchases of short-term investments, net		(2,357,941,902	)
Treasury inflation index adjustments		(3,680,376	)
Increase in interest receivable		(4,737,289	)
Increase in cash collateral		(116,445,004	)
Increase in unrealized appreciation on swap contracts, net		(5,735,644	)
Increase in variation margin on futures contracts		(25,153,264	)
Increase in unrealized appreciation on forward currency contracts		(368,740	)
Increase in payable for investments purchased		82,392
Increase in payable for cash collateral		35,358,171
Increase in accrued management fees		1,243,349
Increase in accrued distribution and service fees		500,368
Increase in accrued administration fees		9,985
Increase in accrued custodian and accounting fees		29,804
Increase in deferred trustees’ fees		5,674
Increase in other expenses		68,118
Increase in interest on reverse repurchase agreements		360,017
Realized gain on investments		(898,576	)
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments		19,364,831
Net cash used in operating activities	$	(3,532,417,600	)
Cash Flows From Financing Activities
Proceeds from shares sold, net of receivable for shares sold		2,511,166,048
Payment on shares redeemed, net of payable for shares redeemed		(13,153,063	)
Proceeds from issuance of reverse repurchase agreements, net of unrealized foreign currency appreciation (depreciation)		4,317,414,032
Repayment of reverse repurchase agreements, net of realized foreign currency gain (loss)		(3,205,860,168	)
Net cash provided by financing activities	$	3,609,566,849
Net increase in cash (a)	$	77,149,249
Cash at beginning of period	$	—
Cash at end of period (b)	$	77,149,249
Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:
Non-cash financing activities not included herein consist of reinvestment of dividends and distributions:	$	42,435,491
Cash paid for interest and fees on borrowings	$	1,314,088

* Commencement of operations was 4/19/2011. Shares first became available to investors through certain separate accounts on the SEC effective date which was 5/2/2011.

(a) Includes net change in unrealized appreciation on foreign currency transactions of $477,771.

(b) Balance includes foreign currency at value of $14,752,249.

^See Note 2 of the notes to financial statements.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected Per Share Data for the Period Ended:
	Class B
	Period Ended December 31, (b)
	2011
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.00
Income from Investment Operations:
Net investment income(a)		0.51
Net realized/unrealized gain on investments		(0.15	)
Total from investment operations		0.36
Net Asset Value on SEC Effective Date, May 2, 2011	$	10.36
Income from Investment Operations:
Net investment income(a)		(0.01	)
Net realized/unrealized gain on investments		0.36
Total from investment operations		0.35
Less Distributions
Dividends from net investment income		(0.15	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.03	)
Total distributions		(0.18	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.53
Total Return (%)		3.60	(c)**
Total Return (%)		3.38	(d)**
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.18	*
Ratio of expenses to average net assets excluding interest expense (%)		0.95	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(e)		1.15	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets excluding interest expense (%)		0.92	*
Ratio of net investment loss to average net assets (%)		(0.06	)*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		7.9
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	2,584.1

* Annualized.

** Not annualized.

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Commencement of operations was 4/19/2011. Shares first became available to investors through certain separate accounts on the SEC effective date which was 5/2/2011.

(c) Total return for the period 4/19/2011 to 5/2/2011.

(d) Total return for the period 5/2/2011 to 12/31/2011.

(e) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio (the “Portfolio”) (commenced operations on April 19, 2011), which is non-diversified. The Portfolio’s shares first became available to investors through certain separate accounts on the SEC effective date which was May 2, 2011. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class B Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio.

2. Consolidation of Subsidiary—AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, Ltd.

The Portfolio may invest up to 25% of its total assets in the AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, Ltd., which is a wholly-owned and controlled subsidiary of the Portfolio that is organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands as an exempted company (the “Subsidiary”). The Portfolio invests in the Subsidiary in order to gain exposure to the commodities market within the limitations of the federal tax laws, rules and regulations that apply to regulated investment companies. The Portfolio has obtained a private letter ruling from the Internal Revenue Service confirming that the annual net profit, if any, realized by the Subsidiary and imputed for income tax purposes to the Portfolio will constitute “qualifying income” for the purposes of the Portfolio remaining qualified as a regulated investment company for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

Generally, the Subsidiary invests primarily in commodity futures and swaps on commodity futures, but it may also invest in other commodity-related instruments and other investments intended to serve as margin or collateral for the Subsidiary’s derivative positions. Unlike the Portfolio, the Subsidiary may invest without limitation in commodity-linked derivatives; however, the Subsidiary complies with the same 1940 Act asset coverage requirements with respect to its investments in commodity-linked derivatives that are applicable to the Portfolio’s transactions in derivatives. In addition, to the extent applicable to the investment activities of the Subsidiary, the Subsidiary is subject to the same fundamental investment restrictions and follows the same compliance policies and procedures as the Portfolio.

By investing in the Subsidiary, the Portfolio is indirectly exposed to the risks associated with the Subsidiary’s investments. The commodity-related instruments held by the Subsidiary are subject to commodities risk. There can be no assurance that the investment objective of the Subsidiary will be achieved. The Subsidiary is not registered under the 1940 Act and is not subject to all the investor protections of the 1940 Act. The Portfolio, however, wholly owns and controls the Subsidiary, and the Portfolio and Subsidiary are both managed by AQR Capital Management, LLC (the “Subadviser”), making it unlikely that the Subsidiary will take action contrary to the interests of the Portfolio and its shareholders. Changes in the laws of the United States and/or Cayman Islands could result in the inability of the Portfolio and/or the Subsidiary to operate as described in the Portfolio’s prospectus and could adversely affect the Portfolio. For example, the Cayman Islands does not currently impose any income, corporate or capital gains tax, estate duty, inheritance tax, gift tax or withholding tax on the Subsidiary. If Cayman Islands law changes such that the Subsidiary must pay Cayman Islands taxes, Portfolio shareholders would likely suffer decreased investment returns.

The consolidated Schedule of Investments, Statement of Assets and Liabilities, Statement of Operations, Statement of Changes in Net Assets, Statement of Cash Flows and the Financial Highlights of the Portfolio includes the account of the Subsidiary. All inter-company accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation for the Portfolio. The Subsidiary has a fiscal year end of December 31st for financial statement consolidation purposes and a nonconforming tax year end of November 30th.

A summary of the Portfolio’s investment in the Subsidiary is as follows:

	Inception Date of Subsidiary		Subsidiary Net Assets at  December 31, 2011		% of Total Assets at  December 31, 2011
AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, Ltd.		4/19/2011	$	249,060,162		7.1	%

3. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Swap contracts are marked-to-market daily based on quotations and prices supplied by market makers, broker-dealers and pricing services. Such quotations and prices are derived utilizing significant observable data, including the underlying investments. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns will remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service for three fiscal years after the returns are filed.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to futures transactions, foreign currency transactions, swap transactions, options transactions, premium amortization adjustments, paydown transactions, contingent payment debt instrument adjustments, forward transactions, deferred trustees’ compensation, and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Reverse Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into reverse repurchase agreements with qualified institutions to seek to enhance returns. Reverse repurchase agreements involve sales by the Portfolio of securities concurrently with an agreement by the Portfolio to repurchase the same assets at a later date at a fixed price. During the reverse repurchase agreement period, the Portfolio continues to receive principal and interest payments on these securities. The Portfolio will establish a segregated account with its custodian in which it will maintain liquid assets equal in value to its obligations in respect of reverse repurchase agreements. Reverse repurchase agreements involve the risk that the market value of the securities retained by the Portfolio may decline below the price of the securities the Portfolio has sold but is obligated to repurchase under the agreement. In the event the buyer of securities under a reverse repurchase agreement files for bankruptcy or becomes insolvent, the Portfolio’s use of the proceeds of the agreement may be restricted pending a determination by the other party, or its trustee or receiver, whether to enforce the Portfolio’s obligation to repurchase the securities. For the period ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had an outstanding reverse repurchase agreement balance for 256 days. The average amount of borrowings was $534,462,241 and the weighted average interest rate was 0.44%.

Foreign Currency Translation - The books and records of the Portfolio are maintained in U.S. dollars. The values of securities, currencies and other assets and liabilities denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars are translated into U.S. dollars based upon foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period. Purchases and sales of investment securities, income and expenses are translated on the respective dates of such transactions. Since the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, it is not practical to isolate that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates from that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities. Such fluctuations are included in the net realized and unrealized gain or loss on investments.

Net realized foreign exchange gains or losses arise from activity in forward foreign currency exchange contracts, sales of foreign currency, currency gains or losses realized between the trade and settlement dates on securities transactions, and the difference between the amounts of dividends, interest, and foreign withholding taxes recorded by the Portfolio and the U.S. dollar equivalent of the amounts actually received or paid

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

by the Portfolio. Gains and losses attributable to foreign currency exchange rates on sales of securities are recorded as Net realized gains and losses on investments. Net unrealized foreign exchange gains and losses arise from changes in the value of assets and liabilities, other than investment securities, resulting from changes in foreign exchange rates.

Forward Commitments and When-Issued and Delayed-Delivery Securities - The Portfolio may purchase securities on a when-issued or delayed delivery basis and may purchase or sell securities on a forward commitment basis. Settlement of such transactions normally occurs within a month or more after the purchase or sale commitment is made. The Portfolio may purchase securities under such conditions only with the intention of actually acquiring them, but may enter into a separate agreement to sell the securities before the settlement date. Since the value of securities purchased may fluctuate prior to settlement, the Portfolio may be required to pay more at settlement than the security is worth. In addition, the purchaser is not entitled to any of the interest earned prior to settlement. Upon making a commitment to purchase a security on a when-issued, delayed delivery or forward commitment basis, the Portfolio will hold liquid assets in a segregated account at the Portfolio’s custodian bank worth at least the equivalent of the amount due. The liquid assets will be monitored on a daily basis and adjusted as necessary to maintain the necessary value.

4. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with AQR Capital Management, LLC (“the Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the period ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$4,654,605		0.675	%	First $250 Million
		0.650	%	$250 Million to $750 Million
		0.625	%	$750 Million to $1 Billion
		0.600	%	Over $1 Billion

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Management Fee Waiver - The Subadviser voluntarily agreed to waive its entire subadvisory fee through July 31, 2011. Also through July 31, 2011, the Adviser voluntarily agreed to waive a portion of the management fee in an amount equal to the subadvisory fees waived. Amounts waived for the period ended December 31, 2011 are shown as a management fee waiver in the Statement of Operations.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Expense Limitation Agreement - The Adviser has entered into an expense limitation agreement with the Trust (“Expense Limitation Agreement”) in the interest of limiting expenses of the Portfolio. The Expense Limitation Agreement shall continue in effect with respect to the Portfolio until October 31, 2012. Pursuant to that Expense Limitation Agreement, the Adviser has agreed to waive or limit its fees and to assume other expenses so that the total annual operating expenses of the Portfolio other than interest, taxes, brokerage commissions, other expenditures which are capitalized or expensed in accordance with GAAP, other extraordinary expenses not incurred in the ordinary course of the Portfolio’s business and acquired fund fees and expenses but including amounts payable pursuant to a plan adopted in accordance with Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act, are limited to the following expense ratio as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets:

Maximum Expense Ratio under current
Expense Limitation  Agreement

Class B

1.10%

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

4. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

If in any year in which the Management Agreement is still in effect, the estimated aggregate operating expenses of the Portfolio for the fiscal year are less than the Maximum Expense Ratio for that year, subject to approval by the Trust’s Board, the Adviser shall be entitled to reimbursement by the Portfolio to the extent that the charge does not cause the expenses in such subsequent year to exceed the Maximum Expense Ratio as stated above. The Portfolio is not obligated to repay any expense paid by the Adviser more than five years after the end of the fiscal year in which such expense was incurred.

Distribution Agreement and Plan - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B distribution plan provides that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B Shares. However, under the Class B distribution agreement, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B distribution plan are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the period ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B distribution plan and distribution agreement the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

5. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the period ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$476,597,493	$	711,887,211	$	20,123,361	$	23,888,353

6. Investments in Derivative Instruments

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - The Portfolio may enter into forward foreign currency exchange contracts to obtain investment exposure, enhance return or hedge or protect its portfolio holdings against the risk of future movements in certain foreign currency exchange rates. When entering into these contracts, the Portfolio agrees to receive or deliver a fixed quantity of foreign currency for an agreed-upon price on an agreed upon future date. These contracts are valued daily and the Portfolio’s net equity therein, representing unrealized gain or loss on the contracts as measured by the difference between the forward foreign exchange rates at the dates of entry into the contracts and the forward foreign exchange rates at the value date, is included in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. When a contract is closed, the Portfolio recognizes a realized gain or loss equal to the difference between the value of the contract at the time it was opened and the value at the time it was closed.

Realized and unrealized gains and losses on forward foreign currency exchange contracts are included in the Statement of Operations. These contracts involve market and/or credit risk in excess of the amount recognized in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

The use of forward foreign currency exchange contracts does not eliminate fluctuations in the underlying prices of the securities of the Portfolio, but it does establish a rate of exchange that can be achieved in the future. Although forward foreign currency exchange contracts may limit the

risk of loss due to a decline in the value of the currency holdings, they also limit any potential gain that might result should the value of the currency increase. In addition, the Portfolio could be exposed to risks if the counterparties to the contracts are unable to meet the terms of the contracts. The Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit risk is the value of its currency exchanged with the counterparty. The risk is generally mitigated by having a netting arrangement between the Portfolio and the counterparty and by the posting of collateral by the counterparty to the Portfolio to cover the Portfolio’s exposure to the counterparty.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Investments in Derivative Instruments - continued

Futures Contracts - The Portfolio may buy and sell futures contracts (on recognized exchanges) as a hedge, to maintain investment exposure to a target asset class or to enhance return. The Portfolio may be subject to fluctuations in equity prices, interest rates, commodity prices and foreign currency exchange rates in the normal course of pursuing its investment objective. Futures contracts are standardized agreements to buy or sell a security, or deliver a final cash settlement price in connection with an index, interest rate, currency, or other asset. The Portfolio must deposit an amount (“initial margin”) equal to a certain percentage of the face value of the futures contract. The initial margin may be in the form of cash or securities which is returned when the Portfolio’s obligations under the contract have been satisfied. If cash is deposited as the initial margin, it is shown as “restricted cash” on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Futures contracts are marked-to-market daily and subsequent payments (“variation margin”) are made or received by the Portfolio depending on the daily fluctuations in the value of the futures contracts. These amounts are reflected as receivables or payables on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Risks of entering into futures contracts (and related options) include the possibility that the market for these instruments may be illiquid and that a change in the value of the contract or option may not correlate perfectly with changes in the value of the underlying instrument. Futures contracts are exchange traded and the exchange’s clearinghouse, as counterparty to all exchange traded futures, guarantees the futures contracts against default.

Commodity Futures Contracts and Swaps on Commodity Futures Contracts - The Subsidiary will invest primarily in commodity futures and swaps on commodity futures. Exposure to the commodities markets may subject the Portfolio to greater volatility than investments in traditional securities. The value of commodity-linked derivative instruments may be affected by changes in overall market movements, commodity index volatility, changes in interest rates, or sectors affecting a particular industry or commodity.

Swap Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into swap contracts. Swap contracts are derivatives agreements to exchange the return generated by one instrument for the return generated by another instrument. The payment streams are calculated by reference to a specified index and agreed upon notional amount. The term “specified index” includes, but is not limited to, currencies, fixed interest rates, prices and total return on interest rate indices, fixed income indices, stock indices and commodity indices (as well as amounts derived from arithmetic operations on these indices). A Portfolio will usually enter into swaps on a net basis, i.e., the two payment streams are netted out in a cash settlement on the payment date or dates specified in the instrument, with the Portfolio receiving or paying, as the case may be, only the net amount of the two payments. The Portfolio’s obligations under a swap agreement will be accrued daily (offset against any amounts owing to the Portfolio) and any accrued but unpaid net amounts owed to a swap counterparty will be covered by designating the segregation, either on its records or with the Trust’s custodian, of cash or other liquid assets, to avoid any potential leveraging of the Portfolio. The Portfolio may enter into swap transactions with counterparties that are approved by the investment adviser in accordance with guidelines established by the Board. These guidelines provide for a minimum credit rating for each counterparty and various credit enhancement techniques (for example, collateralization of amounts due from counterparties) to limit exposure to counterparties that have lower credit ratings.

An index swap is an agreement to swap cash flows on a notional amount based on changes in the values of the reference indices.

Currency Swaps: A currency swap is an agreement to exchange cash flows on a notional amount of two or more currencies based on the relative value differential among them. Such swaps may involve initial and final exchanges that correspond to the agreed upon notional amount. Currency swaps usually involve the delivery of the entire principal value of one designated currency in exchange for the other designated currency. Therefore, the entire principal value of a currency swap is subject to the risk that the other party to the swap will default on its contractual delivery obligations. If there is a default by the counterparty, the Portfolio may have contractual remedies pursuant to the agreements related to the transaction.

Equity swaps are two-party contracts that generally obligate one party to pay the positive return and the other party to pay the negative return on a specified reference security, basket of securities, security index or index component during the period of the swap. Equity swap contracts are marked to market daily based on the value of the underlying security and the change, if any, is recorded as an unrealized gain or loss. Equity swaps normally do not involve the delivery of securities or other underlying assets. If the other party to an equity swap defaults, a Portfolio’s risk of loss consists of the net amount of payments that such Portfolio is contractually entitled to receive, if any. Equity swaps are derivatives and their value can be very volatile.

Total Return Swaps: Total return swap contracts involve commitments to pay interest in exchange for a market-linked return both based on notional amounts. To the extent the total return of the security or index underlying the transactions exceeds or falls short of the offsetting interest rate obligation the Portfolio will receive a payment from or make a payment to the counterparty.

The swaps in which the Portfolio may engage may include instruments under which one party pays a single or periodic fixed amount(s) (or premium), and the other party pays periodic amounts based on the movement of a specified index. Swaps do not involve the delivery of securities, other underlying assets, or principal. Accordingly, the risk of loss with respect to swaps is limited to the net amount of payments the Portfolio is contractually obligated to receive. If the other party to a swap defaults, the Portfolio’s risk of loss consists of the net amount of payments that the Portfolio contractually is entitled to receive. The Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit risk is the value of its currency exchanged with the counterparty. The risk is generally mitigated by having a netting arrangement between the Portfolio and the counterparty and by the posting of collateral by the counterparty to the Portfolio to cover the Portfolio’s exposure to the counterparty.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Investments in Derivative Instruments - continued

The use of swaps is a highly specialized activity that involves investment techniques and risks different from those associated with ordinary portfolio securities transactions. If the Adviser or Subadviser is incorrect in its forecasts of market values, interest rates, and currency exchange rates, the investment performance of the Portfolio would be less favorable than it would have been if this investment technique were not used.

At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had the following derivatives, categorized by risk exposure:

	Asset Derivatives			Liability Derivatives
Risk Exposure	Statement of Assets and Liabilities Location	Fair Value		Statement of Assets and Liabilities Location	Fair Value
Interest Rate	Unrealized appreciation on futures contracts*	$	30,282,741	Unrealized depreciation on futures contracts*	$	715,326
	Swaps at market value		5,282,066	Swaps at market value		221,824
Equity	Unrealized appreciation on futures contracts*		6,426,517	Unrealized depreciation on futures contracts*		1,711,629
	Swaps at market value		675,402	Swaps at market value		—
Commodity	Unrealized appreciation on futures contracts*		2,167,579	Unrealized depreciation on futures contracts*		11,341,773
Currency	Unrealized appreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts		420,017	Unrealized depreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts		51,277
Total		$	45,254,322		$	14,041,829

* Includes cumulative appreciation/depreciation of futures contracts as reported in the notes to financial statements. Only the current day’s variation margin is reported within the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

Transactions in derivative instruments during the period ended December 31, 2011, were as follows:

Statement of Operations Location - Net Realized Gain (Loss)	Interest Rate		Equity			Commodity			Currency		Total
Foreign currency transactions	$	—	$	—		$	—		$	70,515	$	70,515
Future contracts		25,021,820		(11,815,754	)		(188,293	)		—		13,017,773
Swap contracts		6,319,604		(2,598,427	)		7,800,660			—		11,521,837
	$	31,341,424	$	(14,414,181	)	$	7,612,367		$	70,515	$	24,610,125
Statement of Operations Location - Net Change in Unrealized Gain (Loss)
Foreign currency transactions	$	—	$	—		$	—		$	368,740	$	368,740
Future contracts		30,282,740		3,999,565			(9,174,196	)		—		25,108,109
Swap contracts		5,282,066		453,578			—			—		5,735,644
	$	35,564,806	$	4,453,143		$	(9,174,196	)	$	368,740	$	31,212,493

For the period ended December 31, 2011, the average amount or number per contract outstanding for each derivative type was as follows:

Derivative Description	Average Notional or Face Amount(a)
Foreign currency transactions	$	16,055,520
Futures contracts long		742,473,717
Futures contracts short		(2,740	)
Swap contracts		2,294,045

(a) Averages are based on activity levels during 2011.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

7. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts to buy:

Settlement Date	Counterparty	Contracts to Buy			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Unrealized Depreciation
3/21/2012	Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc		2,310,000	EUR	$	2,998,415	$	3,049,692	$	(51,277	)

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts to sell:

Settlement Date	Counterparty	Contracts to Deliver			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Unrealized Appreciation
3/21/2012	Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc		9,140,000	EUR	$	11,863,857	$	12,228,113	$	364,256
3/21/2012	Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc		4,100,000	GBP		6,364,876		6,397,649		32,773
3/21/2012	Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc		54,710,000	RUB		1,684,166		1,707,154		22,988
Net Unrealized Appreciation									$	420,017

EUR— Euro

GBP— British Pound

RUB— Russian Ruble

8. Futures Contracts

The futures contracts outstanding as of December 31, 2011 and the description and unrealized appreciation (depreciation) were as follows:

Futures Contracts - Long	Exchange	Expiration Date		Number of Contracts		Contract Amount		Valuation as of December 31, 2011		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
10 Year Japanese Government Bond Futures	Tokyo Stock Exchange		3/9/2012		495	$	910,986,556	$	915,611,768	$	4,625,212
AEX Index Futures	NYSE Euronext -Euronext Amsterdam		1/20/2012		64		4,962,245		5,201,051		238,806
Aluminum Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/5/2012		18		991,170		897,525		(93,645	)
Aluminum Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/13/2012		5		279,372		249,505		(29,867	)
Aluminum Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/19/2012		10		550,300		499,340		(50,960	)
Aluminum Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/27/2012		5		281,039		250,026		(31,013	)
Aluminum Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		2/7/2012		9		480,986		450,931		(30,055	)
Aluminum Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		2/15/2012		6		324,895		301,050		(23,845	)
Aluminum Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		2/29/2012		9		455,050		452,610		(2,440	)
Aluminum Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		3/7/2012		11		584,821		553,823		(30,998	)
Aluminum Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		3/13/2012		11		559,435		554,364		(5,071	)
Aluminum HG Futures	London Metal Exchange		3/21/2012		176		9,256,920		8,881,400		(375,520	)
Aluminum HG Futures	London Metal Exchange		3/28/2012		9		452,304		454,426		2,122
ASX SPI 200 Index Futures	Australian Securities Exchange		3/15/2012		170		18,209,166		17,507,764		(701,402	)
Australian 10 Year Treasury Bond Futures	Australian Securities Exchange		3/15/2012		149		17,975,198		18,158,227		183,029
Brent Crude Oil Pent Financial Futures	New York Mercantile Exchange		1/13/2012		657		72,024,705		70,548,660		(1,476,045	)

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

8. Futures Contracts - continued

Futures Contracts - Long	Exchange	Expiration Date		Number of Contracts		Contract Amount		Valuation as of December 31, 2011		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
CAC 40 Index Futures	Euronext Paris Monep		1/20/2012		451	$	17,700,698	$	18,518,636	$	817,938
Cattle Feeder Futures	Chicago Mercantile Exchange		1/26/2012		30		2,195,936		2,195,250		(686	)
Cocoa Futures	ICE Futures U.S., Inc.		3/15/2012		43		1,133,053		906,870		(226,183	)
Coffee Futures	ICE Futures U.S., Inc.		3/20/2012		47		4,111,296		3,998,231		(113,065	)
Copper Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/5/2012		7		1,219,516		1,328,313		108,797
Copper Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/13/2012		2		370,496		379,660		9,164
Copper Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/19/2012		5		918,444		949,395		30,951
Copper Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/27/2012		1		196,672		189,955		(6,717	)
Copper Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		2/7/2012		4		773,999		746,286		(27,713	)
Copper Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		2/15/2012		2		387,355		379,975		(7,380	)
Copper Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		2/29/2012		3		556,535		559,860		3,325
Copper Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		3/7/2012		6		1,189,603		1,140,150		(49,453	)
Copper Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		3/13/2012		4		762,280		760,100		(2,180	)
Copper LME Futures	London Metal Exchange		3/21/2012		71		13,901,738		13,491,775		(409,963	)
Copper LME Futures	London Metal Exchange		3/28/2012		4		754,388		760,029		5,641
Corn Futures	Chicago Board Of Trade		3/14/2012		590		18,840,734		19,071,750		231,016
Cotton No. 2 Futures	ICE Futures U.S., Inc.		3/8/2012		110		5,245,121		5,049,000		(196,121	)
DAX Index Futures	Eurex Deutschland		3/16/2012		84		15,746,589		16,071,686		325,097
European Gas Oil (Ice) Futures	New York Mercantile Exchange		1/11/2012		334		31,638,668		30,861,600		(777,068	)
FTSE 100 Index Futures	NYSE Euronext Liffe		3/16/2012		548		46,054,835		47,130,484		1,075,649
FTSE JSE Top 40 Index Futures	South African Futures Exchange		3/15/2012		177		6,327,331		6,264,808		(62,523	)
FTSE MIB Index Futures	Italian Derivatives Market		3/16/2012		43		4,140,080		4,214,822		74,742
German Euro Bund Futures	Eurex Deutschland		3/8/2012		2,928		513,463,929		528,081,503		14,617,574
Gold 100 oz Futures	Commodities Exchange Center		2/27/2012		84		14,774,381		13,161,120		(1,613,261	)
Hang Seng China ENT Index Futures	Hong Kong Futures Exchange, Ltd.		1/30/2012		229		14,900,298		14,699,484		(200,814	)
Hang Seng Index Futures	Hong Kong Futures Exchange, Ltd.		1/30/2012		49		5,866,075		5,821,857		(44,218	)
Henry Hub Nat Gas Swap Futures	New York Mercantile Exchange		1/27/2012		1,230		10,101,893		9,191,175		(910,718	)
IBEX 35 Index Futures	Meff Renta Variable		1/20/2012		59		6,300,547		6,486,838		186,291
KOSPI 200 Index Futures	Korea Exchange (Futures Market)		3/8/2012		117		12,619,898		12,116,406		(503,492	)
Lead Futures	London Metal Exchange		3/21/2012		33		1,733,794		1,677,431		(56,363	)
Lead Futures	London Metal Exchange		3/28/2012		2		99,667		98,000		(1,667	)

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

8. Futures Contracts - continued

Futures Contracts - Long	Exchange	Expiration Date		Number of Contracts		Contract Amount		Valuation as of December 31, 2011		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
Lead Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/5/2012		4	$	191,847	$	201,148	$	9,301
Lead Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/13/2012		1		50,931		50,383		(548	)
Lead Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/19/2012		3		143,969		151,350		7,381
Lead Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		2/7/2012		1		49,690		50,619		929
Lead Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		2/15/2012		1		51,009		48,806		(2,203	)
Lead Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		2/29/2012		3		151,620		146,596		(5,024	)
Lead Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		3/7/2012		2		107,756		101,482		(6,274	)
Lead Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		3/13/2012		2		105,515		101,560		(3,955	)
Lean Hogs Futures	Chicago Mercantile Exchange		2/14/2012		187		6,539,410		6,305,640		(233,770	)
Live Cattle Futures	Chicago Mercantile Exchange		2/29/2012		245		12,169,460		11,902,100		(267,360	)
MSCI Taiwan Index Futures	Singapore Exchange		1/30/2012		352		8,960,715		8,923,200		(37,515	)
Nickel Futures	London Metal Exchange		3/21/2012		23		2,515,170		2,582,670		67,500
Nickel Futures	London Metal Exchange		3/28/2012		2		222,166		224,530		2,364
Nickel Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/5/2012		2		227,693		224,694		(2,999	)
Nickel Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/13/2012		1		114,043		112,371		(1,672	)
Nickel Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/19/2012		1		113,419		112,344		(1,075	)
Nickel Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/27/2012		1		117,833		112,300		(5,533	)
Nickel Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		2/15/2012		2		213,620		214,704		1,084
Nickel Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		2/29/2012		1		103,237		112,206		8,969
Nickel Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		3/7/2012		1		111,042		112,237		1,195
Nickel Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		3/13/2012		1		109,531		112,260		2,729
Nymex Heating Oil Pent Futures	New York Mercantile Exchange		1/30/2012		184		22,768,240		22,520,938		(247,302	)
RBOB Gasoline Fin Futures	New York Mercantile Exchange		1/30/2012		184		20,357,822		20,536,387		178,565
Russell 2000 Mini Index Futures	ICE Futures U.S., Inc.		3/16/2012		279		20,429,397		20,612,520		183,123
S&P 500 E Mini Index Futures	Index And Options Market		3/16/2012		4,043		250,236,393		253,213,090		2,976,697
S&P Midcap 400 E Mini Index Futures	Index And Options Market		3/16/2012		267		23,259,829		23,423,910		164,081
S&P TSE 60 Index Futures	The Montreal Exchange/Bourse De Montreal		3/15/2012		188		24,719,550		25,103,643		384,093
SGX CNX NIFTY Index Futures	Singapore Exchange		1/25/2012		553		5,278,021		5,116,356		(161,665	)
Silver Futures	Commodities Exchange Center		3/28/2012		14		2,349,074		1,954,050		(395,024	)
Soybean Futures	Chicago Board Of Trade		3/14/2012		159		8,939,629		9,601,613		661,984
Sugar Futures	ICE Futures U.S., Inc.		2/29/2012		325		9,584,809		8,481,200		(1,103,609	)

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

8. Futures Contracts - continued

Futures Contracts - Long	Exchange	Expiration Date		Number of Contracts		Contract Amount		Valuation as of December 31, 2011		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
TOPIX Index Futures	Tokyo Stock Exchange		3/9/2012		463	$	44,495,557	$	43,780,231	$	(715,326	)
U.S. Treasury Note 10 Year Futures	Chicago Board Of Trade		3/21/2012		4,577		594,527,679		600,159,125		5,631,446
UK Long Gilt Bond Futures	NYSE Euronext Liffe		3/28/2012		1,248		221,520,749		226,746,229		5,225,480
Wheat Futures	Chicago Board Of Trade		3/14/2012		375		11,846,228		12,239,062		392,834
WTI Bullet Swap Financial Futures	New York Mercantile Exchange		1/19/2012		1,505		150,761,810		148,739,150		(2,022,660	)
Zinc Futures	London Metal Exchange		3/21/2012		46		2,313,070		2,120,313		(192,757	)
Zinc Futures	London Metal Exchange		3/28/2012		3		138,250		138,348		98
Zinc Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/5/2012		5		235,733		228,438		(7,295	)
Zinc Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/13/2012		2		97,063		91,475		(5,588	)
Zinc Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/19/2012		3		139,016		137,433		(1,583	)
Zinc Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/27/2012		1		47,533		45,811		(1,722	)
Zinc Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		2/7/2012		3		143,891		137,588		(6,303	)
Zinc Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		2/15/2012		1		48,670		45,900		(2,770	)
Zinc Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		2/29/2012		1		48,445		45,980		(2,465	)
Zinc Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		3/7/2012		4		205,416		184,079		(21,337	)
Zinc Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		3/13/2012		3		145,810		138,161		(7,649	)
Net Unrealized Appreciation										$	24,911,778

Futures Contracts - Short	Exchange	Expiration Date		Number of Contracts			Contract Amount			Valuation as of December 31, 2011			Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
Aluminum Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/5/2012		(18	)	$	(974,565	)	$	(897,525	)	$	77,040
Aluminum Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/13/2012		(5	)		(277,494	)		(249,505	)		27,989
Aluminum Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/19/2012		(10	)		(550,488	)		(499,340	)		51,148
Aluminum Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/27/2012		(5	)		(281,869	)		(250,026	)		31,843
Aluminum Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		2/7/2012		(9	)		(482,445	)		(450,932	)		31,513
Aluminum Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		2/15/2012		(6	)		(322,042	)		(301,050	)		20,992
Aluminum Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		2/29/2012		(9	)		(454,714	)		(452,610	)		2,104
Aluminum Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		3/7/2012		(11	)		(585,956	)		(553,822	)		32,134
Aluminum Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		3/13/2012		(11	)		(548,611	)		(554,364	)		(5,753	)
Aluminum HG Futures	London Metal Exchange		3/28/2012		(9	)		(452,247	)		(454,426	)		(2,179	)
Copper Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/5/2012		(7	)		(1,189,991	)		(1,328,313	)		(138,322	)
Copper Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/13/2012		(2	)		(368,935	)		(379,661	)		(10,726	)
Copper Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/19/2012		(5	)		(918,744	)		(949,395	)		(30,651	)
Copper Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/27/2012		(1	)		(200,824	)		(189,955	)		10,869
Copper Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		2/7/2012		(4	)		(777,895	)		(746,286	)		31,609
Copper Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		2/15/2012		(2	)		(385,348	)		(379,975	)		5,373
Copper Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		2/29/2012		(3	)		(559,871	)		(559,860	)		11

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

8. Futures Contracts - continued

Futures Contracts - Short	Exchange	Expiration Date		Number of Contracts			Contract Amount			Valuation as of December 31, 2011			Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
Copper Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		3/7/2012		(6	)	$	(1,188,035	)	$	(1,140,150	)	$	47,885
Copper Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		3/13/2012		(4	)		(750,495	)		(760,100	)		(9,605	)
Copper LME Futures	London Metal Exchange		3/28/2012		(4	)		(754,363	)		(760,029	)		(5,666	)
Lead Futures	London Metal Exchange		3/28/2012		(2	)		(99,654	)		(98,000	)		1,654
Lead Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/5/2012		(4	)		(189,500	)		(201,148	)		(11,648	)
Lead Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/13/2012		(1	)		(50,369	)		(50,384	)		(15	)
Lead Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/19/2012		(3	)		(143,137	)		(151,350	)		(8,213	)
Lead Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		2/7/2012		(1	)		(49,747	)		(50,619	)		(872	)
Lead Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		2/15/2012		(1	)		(50,622	)		(48,806	)		1,816
Lead Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		2/29/2012		(3	)		(152,453	)		(146,596	)		5,857
Lead Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		3/7/2012		(2	)		(107,537	)		(101,482	)		6,055
Lead Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		3/13/2012		(2	)		(103,248	)		(101,560	)		1,688
Nickel Futures	London Metal Exchange		3/28/2012		(2	)		(222,154	)		(224,530	)		(2,376	)
Nickel Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/5/2012		(2	)		(221,997	)		(224,694	)		(2,697	)
Nickel Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/13/2012		(1	)		(112,505	)		(112,371	)		134
Nickel Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/19/2012		(1	)		(113,933	)		(112,344	)		1,589
Nickel Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/27/2012		(1	)		(119,398	)		(112,300	)		7,098
Nickel Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		2/15/2012		(2	)		(212,673	)		(214,704	)		(2,031	)
Nickel Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		2/29/2012		(1	)		(102,929	)		(112,206	)		(9,277	)
Nickel Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		3/7/2012		(1	)		(110,992	)		(112,237	)		(1,245	)
Nickel Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		3/13/2012		(1	)		(108,352	)		(112,259	)		(3,907	)
Zinc Futures	London Metal Exchange		3/28/2012		(3	)		(138,232	)		(138,348	)		(116	)
Zinc Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/5/2012		(5	)		(228,750	)		(228,438	)		312
Zinc Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/13/2012		(2	)		(96,225	)		(91,475	)		4,750
Zinc Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/19/2012		(3	)		(139,159	)		(137,433	)		1,726
Zinc Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		1/27/2012		(1	)		(47,924	)		(45,811	)		2,113
Zinc Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		2/7/2012		(3	)		(144,390	)		(137,588	)		6,802
Zinc Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		2/15/2012		(1	)		(48,249	)		(45,900	)		2,349
Zinc Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		2/29/2012		(1	)		(48,523	)		(45,979	)		2,544
Zinc Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		3/7/2012		(4	)		(204,977	)		(184,079	)		20,898
Zinc Futures 3 Months	London Metal Exchange		3/13/2012		(3	)		(141,896	)		(138,161	)		3,735
Net Unrealized Appreciation													$	196,331

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

9. Swap Agreements

Open swap on futures agreements at December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Pay/Receive Floating Rate	Floating Rate Index	Counterparty	Underlying Reference Instrument	Maturity Date		Notional Amount			Market Value			Upfront Premium Paid/(Received)		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
Receive	—	Bank of America Securities LLC	10 Year Japanese Government Bond Futures		3/9/2012		JPY	120,000,000	$	653,217		$	—	$	653,217
Receive	—	Bank of America Securities LLC	10 Year U.S. Treasury Note Futures		3/21/2012		USD	387,386,781		2,841,219			—		2,841,219
Receive	—	Bank of America Securities LLC	Euro Bund Futures		3/8/2012		EUR	41,287,575		1,452,321			—		1,452,321
Receive	—	Bank of America Securities LLC	Long Gilt Futures		2/28/2012		GBP	17,038,908,800		335,309			—		335,309
Receive	—	Bank of America Securities LLC	RTS Index Futures		3/19/2012		USD	4,193,812		54,824			—		54,824
Pay	1-Month USD-LIBOR	Bank of America Securities LLC	Russian Depository Index Futures		3/26/2012		USD	899,452		(7,809	)		—		(7,809	)
Receive	—	Bank of America Securities LLC	Sao Paulo Stock Exchange Index Futures		2/22/2012		BRL	23,353,391		(214,015	)		—		(214,015	)
Receive	—	Bank of America Securities LLC	Swiss Market Index Futures		3/21/2012		CHF	15,026,646		620,578			—		620,578
Total									$	5,735,644		$	—	$	5,735,644

BRL— Brazilian Real

CHF— Swiss Franc

EUR— Euro

GBP— British Pound

JPY— Japanese Yen

USD— United States Dollar

10. Reverse Repurchase Agreements

Reverse repurchase agreements as of December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Counterparty	Interest Rate			Settlement Date		Maturity Date		Par Value		Closing Amount
Barclays Bank plc		1.00	%		12/21/2011		1/18/2012	EUR	267,691,189	$	347,235,565
Barclays Bank plc		0.25	%		10/19/2011		1/18/2012	USD	328,048,000		328,048,000
Barclays Bank plc		0.27	%		12/19/2011		1/18/2012	USD	30,354,000		30,354,000
Barclays Bank plc		0.17	%		12/27/2011		1/18/2012	USD	46,812,875		46,812,875
Greenwich Capital Markets, Inc.		0.20	%		10/25/2011		1/18/2012	USD	48,127,874		48,127,874
Royal Bank of Scotland plc		1.00	%		12/21/2011		1/18/2012	EUR	43,506,194		56,434,050
Royal Bank of Scotland plc		1.00	%		12/29/2011		1/18/2012	EUR	33,681,186		43,689,543
Royal Bank of Scotland plc		1.00	%		12/19/2011		1/18/2012	GBP	6,933,168		10,771,024
Royal Bank of Scotland plc		1.00	%		12/21/2011		1/18/2012	GBP	118,279,260		183,752,755
Royal Bank of Scotland plc		1.00	%		12/28/2011		1/18/2012	GBP	10,510,236		16,328,178
Total										$	1,111,553,864

Securities pledged as collateral against open reverse repurchase agreements are noted in the Schedule of Investments.

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

11. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

12. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

13. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the period ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Ordinary Income	Long-Term Capital Gain		Total
$37,824,231	$	4,611,260	$	42,435,491

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation			Loss Carryforwards		Total
$26,205,805	$	12,339,949	$	(8,131,555	)	$	—	$	30,414,199

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses. At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not have any capital loss carryforwards.

14. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

14. Recent Accounting Pronouncements - continued

about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

25

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying consolidated statement of assets and liabilities, including the consolidated schedule of investments, of AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related consolidated statement of operations, the consolidated statement of cash flows, the consolidated statement of changes in net assets, and the financial highlights for the period from April 19, 2011 (commencement of operations) to December 31, 2011. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, and the results of its operations and its cash flows, the changes in its net assets, and the financial highlights for the period from April 19, 2011 (commencement of operations) to December 31, 2011, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 28, 2012

26

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

27

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

28

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

29

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio

Managed by Batterymarch Financial Management, Inc.

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A shares of the Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio returned 1.38%. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index¹, returned 2.11%.

Market Environment / Conditions

Despite a string of global macro shocks during the first quarter of 2011 including the Sendai, Japan earthquake and tsunami, increasing unrest in the Middle East and continuing concerns about European sovereign debt issues, United States (“U.S.”) stocks ended the quarter on a high note as investors became increasingly optimistic about a sustained U.S. economic recovery.

This positive note continued until May when worries over the health of the global economy were reinvigorated and macro issues became more pervasive. Recurring concerns over peripheral European sovereign debt and global inflation, coupled with a slowdown in economic growth, an unanticipated rise in U.S. unemployment and a confirmed double dip in U.S. housing, led to investors shedding risky assets in favor of safer havens.

Political brinksmanship over the U.S. debt ceiling in late July and Standard & Poor’s downgrade of the U.S. credit rating in early August combined with increasing fears of a Greek default led to a rattling of global markets. European Union (“E.U.”) policy makers consistently failed to come up with a credible solution for the European debt crisis, driving concerns over the potential for the E.U. itself to unravel and for contagion to spread to other markets.

Headline risk continued to drive market returns for the remainder of the year. U.S. equities rose in double digits in October as investors began to shrug off the idea of a U.S. recession. November was particularly volatile, beginning with the failure of the congressional Super Committee to enact specific steps to reduce the deficit and ending with a globally coordinated central bank action to lower the cost of dollar funding. Nonetheless, the U.S. economy continued to show modest signs of improvement. A decline in the jobless rate and stronger manufacturing data released in December helped boost sentiment during the fourth quarter, providing further stabilization to the U.S. economy, and a last minute extension to the payroll-tax cut in late December helped fuel an abbreviated year-end rally for U.S. stocks.

Portfolio Review / Year-End Positioning

The Portfolio underperformed its benchmark for the period. Relative performance was the most difficult in May when macro issues strongly impacted the market environment, and improved in the final quarter.

Our stock selection model results were positive for the year. In response to our analysis of macro and risk exposures, we made several adjustments to our stock selection model in October to balance results from a risk, value and dimensional standpoint. This rebalancing produced slightly better performance over the period through year end, but with significantly reduced volatility on a day-to-day basis.

For the full year, stock selection results were essentially neutral relative to the benchmark. Stock selection was notably weak in the Consumer Discretionary and Industrials sectors. Non-benchmark holding Arch Coal Inc. was the primary detractor at the stock level given its negative return of over 58% for the period held. Earnings have not met expectations and an acquisition earlier in the year which made sense from a geographical diversification standpoint was dilutive to 2011 earnings. Overweighting Hewlett-Packard Co., which had a negative return of over 37% as a result of a decline in EPS expectations and a not well-received plan to sell its PC business, as well as underweighting McDonalds Corp. also detracted from the Portfolio’s performance.

Stock selection results were strong in Health Care stocks, led by an overweight to Humana Inc. which experienced a number of analyst upgrades during the reporting period and provided a detailed road map for 2012 that was well received by the street. Stock selection also added to relative returns in the Consumer Staples sector. The two top contributors at the security level were underweights to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Bank of America Corp. These positions and an underweight to Citigroup Inc. all added to relative return given that they were significant underperformers within the benchmark, likely due to the uncertainty surrounding Euro-debt contagion and the impact of new U.S. regulations.

As of the end of the period, the Portfolio remained broadly diversified and attractively valued as compared to the benchmark, with a lower one-year forward price to earnings ratio than the benchmark (10.3X vs. 11.6X) and a comparable return on equity (22.2% vs. 22.1%). Sector bets relative to the benchmark remain modest, consistent with our process that emphasizes stock selection. Within this context of modest bets, Information Technology was the most overweight sector, while Consumer Staples and Financials were the most underweight.

Stephen A. Lanzendorf, CFA, Deputy Chief Investment Officer and Senior Portfolio Manager

Adam J. Petryk, CFA, Deputy Chief Investment Officer and Senior Portfolio Manager

Batterymarch Financial Management, Inc.

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio

Managed by Batterymarch Financial Management, Inc.

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Exxon Mobil Corp.		4.2
Apple, Inc.		3.8
International Business Machines Corp.		2.7
Chevron Corp.		2.6
Microsoft Corp.		2.6
Pfizer, Inc.		2.4
Google, Inc. - Class A		2.1
General Electric Co.		2.1
Intel Corp.		2.0
Procter & Gamble Co. (The)		1.6

Top Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Non-Cyclical		22.3
Technology		15.8
Energy		14.0
Communications		11.2
Financials		11.1
Industrials		10.9
Cyclical		6.8
Basic Materials		4.4
Utilities		3.5

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio

Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio managed by

Batterymarch Financial Management, Inc. vs. S&P 500 Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year
Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio—Class A		1.38%		-0.88%		2.26%
S&P 500 Index1		2.11%		-0.25%		2.92%

¹The Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Composite Stock Price Index is an unmanaged index representing the performance of 500 major companies, most of which are listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

²“Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gains distributions.

Inception of Class A shares is 5/16/83. Index returns are based on an inception date of 5/16/83. On May 1, 2006, the assets of The Travelers Growth and Income Stock Account for Variable Annuities were transferred to the Portfolio. The historical performance prior to this period is the performance of the Portfolio’s predecessor insurance company separate account managed by an entity which became an affiliate of the Adviser in December 2005 using the same investment objective and similar investment strategies as the Portfolio. The separate account’s performance reflects all expenses, including Contract charges, since such charges were not separately stated from other account expenses. Subsequent to May 1, 2006, the Portfolio’s performance does not reflect Contract charges. If Contract charges had been excluded from the performance calculations, the performance numbers would have been higher. Prior to May 1, 2006, the Portfolio was not registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“1940 Act”) and was not subject to certain investment limitations, diversification requirements, and other restrictions imposed by the 1940 Act and the Internal Revenue Code, which, if applicable, may have adversely affected its performance.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A(a)
Actual		0.65%	$	1,000.00	$	964.60	$	3.22
Hypothetical*		0.65%		1,000.00		1,021.92		3.31

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

(a) The annualized expense ratio shown reflects an expense limitation agreement between MetLife Advisers, LLC and the Portfolio as described in Note 3 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—99.8% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—3.0%
General Dynamics Corp.		19,916	$	1,322,621
Honeywell International, Inc.		14,666		797,097
Lockheed Martin Corp.		10,963		886,907
Northrop Grumman Corp. (a)		21,000		1,228,080
Raytheon Co.		19,100		924,058
United Technologies Corp.		27,841		2,034,899
				7,193,662
Air Freight & Logistics—0.2%
United Parcel Service, Inc. - Class B		7,210		527,700
Automobiles—0.2%
Ford Motor Co.*		51,800		557,368
Beverages—1.7%
Coca-Cola Co. (The)		15,750		1,102,028
Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc.		23,300		600,674
Constellation Brands, Inc. - Class A*		60,400		1,248,468
Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc.		26,700		1,054,116
				4,005,286
Biotechnology—0.7%
Amgen, Inc.		24,741		1,588,620
Chemicals—2.6%
CF Industries Holdings, Inc.		3,000		434,940
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.		46,196		2,114,853
Monsanto Co.		10,300		721,721
Mosaic Co. (The)		21,100		1,064,073
PPG Industries, Inc.		16,900		1,410,981
Rockwood Holdings, Inc.*		11,700		460,629
				6,207,197
Commercial Banks—3.2%
Bank of Hawaii Corp. (a)		14,100		627,309
BOK Financial Corp. (a)		7,000		384,510
Commerce Bancshares, Inc.		10,185		388,252
Fifth Third Bancorp.		34,500		438,840
KeyCorp.		208,400		1,602,596
U.S. Bancorp.		66,200		1,790,710
Wells Fargo & Co.		87,184		2,402,791
				7,635,008
Commercial Services & Supplies—0.3%
RR Donnelley & Sons Co. (a)		45,190		652,092
Communications Equipment—1.9%
Cisco Systems, Inc.		189,684	$	3,429,487
QUALCOMM, Inc.		23,252		1,271,884
				4,701,371
Computers & Peripherals—5.2%
Apple, Inc.*		22,842		9,251,010
Dell, Inc.*		62,504		914,433
Hewlett-Packard Co.		95,856		2,469,251
				12,634,694
Construction & Engineering—1.2%
Fluor Corp.		44,200		2,221,050
Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.*		14,400		584,352
				2,805,402
Consumer Finance—1.0%
Capital One Financial Corp. (a)		20,100		850,029
Discover Financial Services		67,800		1,627,200
				2,477,229
Diversified Financial Services—2.6%
Bank of America Corp.		96,687		537,580
Citigroup, Inc.		57,332		1,508,405
JPMorgan Chase & Co.		97,093		3,228,342
NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. (The)*		38,800		950,988
				6,225,315
Diversified Telecommunication Services—2.2%
AT&T, Inc.		80,883		2,445,902
Verizon Communications, Inc.		74,075		2,971,889
				5,417,791
Electric Utilities—1.2%
Edison International		10,800		447,120
Exelon Corp.		35,260		1,529,226
Pinnacle West Capital Corp.		19,400		934,692
				2,911,038
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—1.4%
Arrow Electronics, Inc.*		24,000		897,840
Avnet, Inc.*		24,700		767,923
Corning, Inc.		73,482		953,796
Tech Data Corp.*		15,900		785,619
				3,405,178
Energy Equipment & Services—2.3%
Halliburton Co.		63,300		2,184,483
Oil States International, Inc.*		36,000		2,749,320

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Energy Equipment & Services—(Continued)
RPC, Inc. (a)		36,000	$	657,000
				5,590,803
Food & Staples Retailing—3.1%
CVS Caremark Corp.		41,000		1,671,980
Kroger Co. (The)		42,700		1,034,194
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.		49,495		2,957,821
Whole Foods Market, Inc.		24,400		1,697,752
				7,361,747
Food Products—1.7%
ConAgra Foods, Inc.		35,200		929,280
Corn Products International, Inc.		4,700		247,173
Dean Foods Co.*		81,800		916,160
Hormel Foods Corp. (a)		27,800		814,262
Tyson Foods, Inc. - Class A		58,400		1,205,376
				4,112,251
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—1.2%
Baxter International, Inc.		27,300		1,350,804
Covidien plc		15,000		675,150
Medtronic, Inc.		19,900		761,175
				2,787,129
Health Care Providers & Services—4.0%
Aetna, Inc.		42,500		1,793,075
Cardinal Health, Inc.		13,200		536,052
CIGNA Corp.		25,900		1,087,800
Humana, Inc.		22,900		2,006,269
Medco Health Solutions, Inc.*		24,700		1,380,730
UnitedHealth Group, Inc.		54,275		2,750,657
				9,554,583
Household Durables—0.6%
Tupperware Brands Corp.		25,000		1,399,250
Household Products—2.2%
Colgate-Palmolive Co.		5,100		471,189
Energizer Holdings, Inc.*		11,500		891,020
Procter & Gamble Co. (The)		57,802		3,855,971
				5,218,180
Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders—0.3%
AES Corp. (The)*		60,900		721,056
Industrial Conglomerates—3.1%
General Electric Co.		279,024		4,997,320
Tyco International, Ltd.		51,890		2,423,782
				7,421,102
Insurance—2.3%
Aflac, Inc.		24,200	$	1,046,892
American Financial Group, Inc.		4,300		158,627
Assurant, Inc.		54,900		2,254,194
Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. - Class B*		16,600		1,266,580
Principal Financial Group, Inc.		33,500		824,100
				5,550,393
Internet & Catalog Retail—0.7%
Amazon.com, Inc.*		6,100		1,055,910
Expedia, Inc. (a)		10,000		290,200
TripAdvisor, Inc.* (a)		10,000		252,100
				1,598,210
Internet Software & Services—2.1%
Google, Inc. - Class A*		7,900		5,102,610
IT Services—4.2%
Accenture plc - Class A		14,200		755,866
CACI International, Inc. - Class A* (a)		9,300		520,056
International Business Machines Corp.		35,046		6,444,259
Visa, Inc. - Class A		23,600		2,396,108
				10,116,289
Leisure Equipment & Products—0.5%
Mattel, Inc.		28,800		799,488
Polaris Industries, Inc. (a)		8,000		447,840
				1,247,328
Machinery—1.1%
AGCO Corp.*		25,500		1,095,735
Cummins, Inc.		9,900		871,398
SPX Corp.		10,400		626,808
				2,593,941
Media—3.4%
CBS Corp. - Class B		93,500		2,537,590
Comcast Corp. - Class A		64,804		1,536,503
DIRECTV - Class A*		23,800		1,017,688
Omnicom Group, Inc.		13,800		615,204
Time Warner Cable, Inc.		11,050		702,448
Viacom, Inc. - Class B		41,800		1,898,138
				8,307,571
Metals & Mining—0.9%
Cliffs Natural Resources, Inc.		10,800		673,380
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc.		38,100		1,401,699
				2,075,079

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Multi-Utilities—2.1%
Alliant Energy Corp.		35,300	$	1,557,083
CenterPoint Energy, Inc.		29,300		588,637
Integrys Energy Group, Inc. (a)		14,260		772,607
NiSource, Inc. (a)		57,500		1,369,075
OGE Energy Corp.		11,800		669,178
				4,956,580
Multiline Retail—1.1%
Macy’s, Inc.		27,100		872,078
Target Corp.		33,517		1,716,741
				2,588,819
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—11.6%
Chevron Corp.		59,679		6,349,846
ConocoPhillips		49,638		3,617,121
Exxon Mobil Corp.		119,454		10,124,921
Hess Corp.		17,200		976,960
Marathon Oil Corp.		28,800		842,976
Marathon Petroleum Corp.		49,100		1,634,539
Murphy Oil Corp.		22,300		1,243,002
Occidental Petroleum Corp.		7,716		722,989
Tesoro Corp.* (a)		42,300		988,128
Valero Energy Corp.		67,900		1,429,295
				27,929,777
Paper & Forest Products—0.9%
Domtar Corp.		17,000		1,359,320
International Paper Co.		27,900		825,840
				2,185,160
Pharmaceuticals—7.9%
Abbott Laboratories		54,779		3,080,223
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.		61,900		2,181,356
Eli Lilly & Co.		47,576		1,977,259
Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings, Inc.*		21,300		735,489
Johnson & Johnson		40,354		2,646,415
Merck & Co., Inc.		64,904		2,446,881
Pfizer, Inc.		271,236		5,869,547
				18,937,170
Professional Services—0.4%
Manpower, Inc.		8,800		314,600
Towers Watson & Co. - Class A		12,500		749,125
				1,063,725
Real Estate Investment Trusts—1.5%
Annaly Capital Management, Inc.		36,900	$	588,924
Apartment Investment & Management Co. - Class A		42,100		964,511
Camden Property Trust (a)		19,100		1,188,784
Kimco Realty Corp.		61,500		998,760
				3,740,979
Road & Rail—1.2%
CSX Corp.		42,900		903,474
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc.		18,620		839,203
Ryder System, Inc.		22,700		1,206,278
				2,948,955
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—2.8%
Applied Materials, Inc.		66,900		716,499
Intel Corp.		202,129		4,901,628
LSI Corp.*		69,500		413,525
Novellus Systems, Inc.*		16,100		664,769
				6,696,421
Software—4.8%
Adobe Systems, Inc.*		27,600		780,252
Microsoft Corp.		243,480		6,320,741
Oracle Corp.		110,040		2,822,526
Symantec Corp.*		56,100		877,965
VMware, Inc. - Class A*		9,800		815,262
				11,616,746
Specialty Retail—2.3%
AutoZone, Inc.*		4,000		1,299,880
Foot Locker, Inc.		33,600		801,024
O’Reilly Automotive, Inc.*		6,300		503,685
PetSmart, Inc.		23,200		1,189,928
Ross Stores, Inc.		34,800		1,654,044
				5,448,561
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—0.5%
VF Corp.		8,800		1,117,512
Tobacco—0.4%
Philip Morris International, Inc.		12,788		1,003,602
Total Common Stocks (Cost $219,830,765)				239,936,480

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Short-Term Investment—2.9%

Security Description	Shares		Value
Mutual Funds—2.9%
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (b) (Cost—$7,051,720)		7,051,720	$	7,051,720
Total Investments—102.7% (Cost $226,882,485#)				246,988,200
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(2.7)%				(6,552,072	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	240,436,128

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $229,290,996. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $29,262,067 and $(11,564,863), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $17,697,204 for federal income tax purposes.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities loaned was $8,188,278 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $7,051,720 and non-cash collateral with a value of $1,394,663. The cash collateral is invested in a money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The non-cash collateral received consists primarily of government securities and bank letters of credit, and are held for the benefit of the Portfolio at the Portfolio’s custodian. The Portfolio cannot repledge or resell this collateral. As such, this collateral is excluded from the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

(b) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities lending transactions.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Total Common Stocks*	$	239,936,480	$	—	$	—	$	239,936,480
Total Short-Term Investment*		7,051,720		—		—		7,051,720
Total Investments	$	246,988,200	$	—	$	—	$	246,988,200

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)(b)	$	246,988,200
Cash		482,212
Receivable from Adviser		16,124
Dividends receivable		277,253
Total assets		247,763,789
Liabilities
Payables for:
Shares redeemed		70,690
Collateral for securities loaned		7,051,720
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		131,707
Administration fees		1,318
Custodian and accounting fees		2,482
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		44,677
Total liabilities		7,327,661
Net Assets	$	240,436,128
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	265,995,708
Accumulated net realized loss		(49,024,712	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments		20,105,715
Undistributed net investment income		3,359,417
Net Assets	$	240,436,128
Net Assets
Class A	$	240,436,128
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		14,698,447
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	16.36

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments was $226,882,485.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $8,188,278.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	5,212,806
Interest (b)		32,449
Total investment income		5,245,255
Expenses
Management fees		1,659,431
Administration fees		15,996
Custodian and accounting fees		30,079
Audit and tax services		33,152
Legal		88,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Shareholder reporting		40,018
Insurance		536
Miscellaneous		5,546
Total expenses		1,908,468
Less expenses reimbursed by the Adviser		(249,037	)
Less broker commission recapture		(10,927	)
Net expenses		1,648,504
Net investment income		3,596,751
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments
Net realized gain on investments		8,997,072
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments		(8,939,029	)
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments		58,043
Net Increase in Net Assets from Operations	$	3,654,794

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $2,138.

(b) Includes net income on securities loaned of $32,394.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	3,596,751		$	3,742,705
Net realized gain on investments		8,997,072			11,628,959
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments		(8,939,029	)		17,509,323
Net increase in net assets resulting from operations		3,654,794			32,880,987
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(3,902,055	)		(3,680,736	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(3,902,055	)		(3,680,736	)
Net decrease in net assets from capital share transactions		(26,110,515	)		(24,126,017	)
Net Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets		(26,357,776	)		5,074,234
Net assets at beginning of period		266,793,904			261,719,670
Net assets at end of period	$	240,436,128		$	266,793,904
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	3,359,417		$	3,709,430

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		51,319		$	880,108			28,656		$	431,847
Reinvestments		226,732			3,902,055			236,096			3,680,736
Redemptions		(1,874,578	)		(30,892,678	)		(1,911,242	)		(28,238,600	)
Net decrease		(1,596,527	)	$	(26,110,515	)		(1,646,490	)	$	(24,126,017	)
Decrease derived from capital shares transactions				$	(26,110,515	)				$	(24,126,017	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	16.37		$	14.59		$	12.27		$	22.52		$	22.56
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.23			0.22			0.20			0.26			0.24
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		0.01			1.77			2.40			(7.61	)		1.50
Total from investment operations		0.24			1.99			2.60			(7.35	)		1.74
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.25	)		(0.21	)		(0.28	)		(0.26	)		(0.20	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(2.64	)		(1.58	)
Total distributions		(0.25	)		(0.21	)		(0.28	)		(2.90	)		(1.78	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	16.36		$	16.37		$	14.59		$	12.27		$	22.52
Total Return (%)		1.38			13.71			21.90			(36.87	)		7.85
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.75			0.73			0.73			0.69			0.71
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.65			0.65			0.65			0.65			0.65
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.41			1.47			1.59			1.52			1.06
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		54.8			65.1			73.7			69.2			81.4
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	240.4		$	266.8		$	261.7		$	239.1		$	440.3

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to broker commission recapture, foreign currency transactions, passive foreign investment companies (PFICs), partnerships, deferred trustees’ compensation, capital loss carryforwards, Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Securities Lending - The Portfolio may lend its portfolio securities to certain qualified brokers who borrow securities in order to complete certain securities transactions. By lending its portfolio securities, the Portfolio attempts to increase its net investment income through the receipt of income on the loaned securities. Any gain or loss in the market price of the loaned securities that might occur and any interest earned or dividends declared during the term of the loan would accrue to the account of the Portfolio.

The Trust has entered into a securities lending arrangement with the custodian, State Street Bank and Trust Company (the “custodian”). Under this arrangement, the custodian is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral at least equal to 102% of the market value of the loaned securities (105% for foreign equity securities), at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities must be maintained for the duration of the loan. Cash collateral is generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The Navigator Portfolio is a registered money market fund

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

which invests in a variety of high quality U.S. dollar-denominated instruments. If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower shall be required to deliver, by the close of business on the following business day, an additional amount of collateral so that the total amount of posted collateral equals at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of net income (income after the deduction of expenses and fees of the Navigator Portfolio) on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the custodian and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by U.S. Treasuries, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the custodian. The risks associated with lending portfolio securities include, but are not limited to, possible delays in receiving additional collateral or in the recovery of the loaned securities, possible loss of rights in the collateral should the borrower fail financially, as well as risk of loss in the value of the collateral or the value of the investments made with the collateral. Net interest income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2011 is disclosed in the footnotes to the Statement of Operations. Any outstanding loans by the Portfolio at December 31, 2011 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

Directed Brokerage Agreement - The Trust has entered into a directed brokerage arrangement with State Street Global Markets (“SSGM”). Under the arrangement, the Portfolio directs certain trades to SSGM in return for a recapture credit. SSGM issues a cash rebate to the Portfolio. Amounts paid to the Portfolio are shown separately as broker commission recapture on the Statement of Operations of the Portfolio. Additionally, these amounts have been excluded from the calculation of the ratio of net expenses to average net assets presented in the Financial Highlights for each share class.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with Batterymarch Financial Management, Inc. (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year  ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$1,659,431		0.65	%	First $500 Million
		0.55	%	$500 Million to $1 Billion
		0.50	%	$1 Billion to $1.5 Billion
		0.45	%	$1.5 Billion to $2 Billion
		0.40	%	Over $2 Billion

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Expense Limitation Agreement - The Adviser has entered into an expense limitation agreement with the Trust (“Expense Limitation Agreement”) in the interest of limiting expenses of the Portfolio. The Expense Limitation Agreement for the Portfolio is permanent. Pursuant to that Expense Limitation Agreement, the Adviser has agreed to waive or limit its fees and to assume other expenses so that the total annual operating expenses of the Portfolio other than interest, taxes, brokerage commissions, other expenditures which are capitalized or expensed in accordance with GAAP, other extraordinary expenses not incurred in the ordinary course of the Portfolio’s business and acquired fund fees and expenses but including amounts payable pursuant to a plan adopted in accordance with Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act, are limited to the following expense ratio as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets:

Maximum Expense Ratio under current Expense Limitation Agreement		Expenses Deferred in
		2007		2008		2009		2010		2011
		Subject to Repayment until December 31,
Class A Expense Ratio	Average Daily Net Assets	2012		2013		2014		2015		2016
0.65%	First $500 Million	$	223,355	$	139,303	$	172,848	$	197,726	$	249,037
0.55%	$500 Million to $1 Billion
0.50%	$1 Billion to $1.5 Billion
0.45%	$1.5 Billion to $2 Billion
0.40%	Over $2 Billion

The expenses reimbursed for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as expenses reimbursed by the Adviser in the Statement of Operations of the Portfolio.

If in any year in which the Management Agreement is still in effect, the estimated aggregate operating expenses of the Portfolio for the fiscal year are less than the Maximum Expense Ratio for that year, subject to approval by the Trust’s Board, the Adviser shall be entitled to reimbursement by the Portfolio to the extent that the charge does not cause the expenses in such subsequent year to exceed the Maximum Expense Ratio as stated above. The Portfolio is not obligated to repay any expense paid by the Adviser more than five years after the end of the fiscal year in which such expense was incurred. As of December 31, 2011, there was $982,269 in expense deferrals eligible for recoupment by the Adviser.

Distribution Agreements and Plans - The Trust has distribution agreements with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. as designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$—	$	140,673,139	$	—	$	167,336,960

5. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

7. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gains				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$3,902,055	$	3,680,736	$	—	$	—	$	3,902,055	$	3,680,736

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards			Total
$3,384,484	$	—	$	17,697,204	$	(46,616,201	)	$	(25,534,513	)

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses.

As of December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and the pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards and expiration dates were as follows:

Expiring 12/31/2016	Expiring 12/31/2017		Total
$32,428,306	$	14,187,895	$	46,616,201

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements - continued

processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

9. Subsequent Events

At a meeting held on November 8-9, 2011, the Board of Trustees of the Trust, subject to shareholder approval, approved an Agreement and Plan of Reorganization (the “Plan”) providing for the acquisition of all the assets of the Portfolio by the MetLife Stock Index Portfolio, (“MetLife Stock Index”), a portfolio of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in exchange for shares of MetLife Stock Index and the assumption by MetLife Stock Index of the liabilities of the Portfolio and voted to submit the Plan to shareholders of the Portfolio for their approval. On or about February 24, 2012, the shareholders of the Portfolio are expected to consider the approval of the Plan. If the Plan is approved by shareholders of the Portfolio, the reorganization is expected to close on or about April 30, 2012.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 23, 2012

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the one- year period ended June 30, 2011 and underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the three- and five- year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the S&P 500 Index, for the one-, three- and five- year periods ended September 30, 2011. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance, including the strong long-term performance record of the Portfolio’s comparable retail fund. The Board also considered the fact that at the November 7-8, 2011 meeting it approved the merger of the Portfolio into the MetLife Stock Index Portfolio, a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s moderate underperformance was being reasonably addressed and/or monitored.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the Expense Group median, the Expense Universe median and the Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were below the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board noted that the Adviser is waiving fees and/or reimbursing expenses so that the Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses are capped. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the

25

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

With respect to the Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board noted that the Portfolio had not yet reached the specified asset level at which a breakpoint to its contractual advisory fee would be triggered. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s management fees are above the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at lower asset levels but decreased below the asset-weighted average at higher asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

26

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio

Managed by BlackRock Financial Management, Inc.

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

Since its inception on May 2, 2011, the Class B shares of the BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio returned -3.41%. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Dow Jones Moderate Index¹, returned -5.42%.

Market Environment/Conditions

2011 was a frustrating, volatile and disappointing year for most investors. Expectations entering the year featured a continuation of economic recovery around the world from the Great Recession of 2009, despite ongoing deleveraging and residual debt and credit concerns. The first shock to the system was the social and political upheaval in the Middle East that resulted in an unexpected and damaging rise in the price of oil. Those developments were quickly followed by a devastating earthquake, tsunami and nuclear power crisis in Japan that dampened Japanese and global growth in a variety of ways. The crowning blow was the intensification of the debt and credit issues in Europe, which led to a near collapse of the European Monetary Union. As the crisis in Europe unfolded, it became increasingly clear that the problem was a monetary union that required some additional fiscal union; and, fiscal union required austerity policies that exacerbated default risks, in part due to slowing economic growth. The European Central Bank raised rates in an effort to stave off inflation when deflation was the real threat. Economic growth weakened in the United States, although some pickup occurred in the fourth quarter. Political gridlock reached new heights in Washington, DC, around fiscal policy, damaging corporate and consumer confidence. Emerging market inflation resulted in some monetary policy tightening, which slowed growth in many countries.

Unprecedented volatility and rising correlations in markets ruled the day once again, discouraging traders and investors alike. The “risk-on, risk-off” alternation occurred frequently, with “risk-off” assets winning for the year. The US equity market was a notable outperformer, finishing the year about flat, while emerging and European equities posted double-digit percentage declines. Job growth improved and unemployment fell, although both by disappointing amounts. Commodities were mixed and volatile, with oil and gold among the strongest. Dividends, share buybacks and acquisitions for cash increased significantly as corporations continued to shun outright business expansion.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

At the close of the second quarter of 2011, the Portfolio was positioned with broadly neutral weights to both equity and fixed income relative to its blended benchmark. Within equities, the Portfolio had a bias toward U.S. large-cap stocks, with underweight positions in international developed large-caps and U.S. small-caps. The Portfolio was roughly 10% overweight in U.S. large-cap stocks and 5% underweight in international developed large-caps relative to its long-term strategic asset allocation. We favored equities paying high dividends in a slow-growth environment, and saw opportunities in German and Swedish equity markets and added exposures accordingly. Within fixed income, the Portfolio remained neutral, with valuations at fair levels and overall steady performance across the risk spectrum. The Portfolio had an overweight position in high yield bonds, with a slight underweight in core bonds.

In the second half of 2011, our view became more cautious. As heightened uncertainty led to increased volatility, we reduced risk across equities and fixed income and increased the Portfolio’s cash allocation significantly. Throughout the second half of the year, we maintained an exposure to Germany as we continued to believe its position of relative strength within the Eurozone would provide support compared to other international markets. We also added exposure to Japanese equities based on attractive valuations. The large cap bias we had in the second quarter of 2011 tended to privilege U.S. equities over international equities, and the bias remained throughout the rest of the year. At period end, the Portfolio had a 6% underweight to international stocks relative to its long-term strategic asset allocation. We eliminated holdings in real estate securities within the Portfolio’s opportunistic allocation, and we used the highs in credit markets to reduce high yield exposure.

The Portfolio’s positioning at period end is underweight in both equities and fixed income and overweight in cash. The result of our de-risking in the second half of the year has led to a 38% cash position, which is consistent with our de-risking strategy that aims to dampen volatility by scaling down Portfolio exposures pro-rata and into cash.

Philip Green

Portfolio Manager

BlackRock Financial Management, Inc.

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio

Managed by BlackRock Financial Management, Inc.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
iShares MSCI EAFE Index Fund		10.4
SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust		9.7
iShares Barclays Aggregate Bond Fund		8.5
Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF		7.3
iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond Fund		2.7
iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond Fund		2.6
Technology Select Sector SPDR Fund ETF		2.5
Vanguard Dividend Appreciation Index Fund ETF		2.5
Market Vectors Agribusiness ETF		2.2
Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund		2.2

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio

BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio managed by
BlackRock Financial Management, Inc. vs. Dow Jones Moderate Index¹

	Cumulative Return2 (for the period ended 12/31/11)
	Since Inception3
BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio—Class B		-3.41%
Dow Jones Moderate Index1		-5.42%

¹The Dow Jones Moderate Index is a total returns index designed to provide asset allocation strategists with a target risk benchmark. Each month, the index adjusts its weightings of stocks, bonds, and cash indices (both domestic and foreign) from Barclays and Dow Jones such that the risk of that combination will have 60% of the risk of an all equity portfolio.

²“Cumulative Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

³ Inception of the Class B shares is 5/2/2011. Index returns are based on an inception date of 5/2/2011.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class B(a)
Actual		0.93%	$	1,000.00	$	975.70	$	4.63
Hypothetical*		0.93%		1,000.00		1,020.51		4.74

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

(a) The annualized expense ratio reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 3 to the Financial Statements.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Investment Company Securities—61.5% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares Amount		Value
Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund		1,183,027	$	81,782,657
iShares Barclays 1-3 Year Credit Bond Fund (a)		678,102		70,658,229
iShares Barclays Aggregate Bond Fund (a)		2,842,613		313,398,083
iShares Dow Jones EPAC Select Dividend Index Fund (a)		496,844		14,751,298
iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond Fund (a)		1,056,847		94,513,827
iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond Fund (a)		860,011		97,834,851
iShares MSCI EAFE Index Fund (a)		7,772,838		384,988,666
iShares MSCI Germany Index Fund (a)(b)		1,374,130		26,410,779
iShares MSCI Japan Index Fund (a)		8,545,718		77,851,491
iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund (a)		709,762		52,302,362
iShares Russell 3000 Index Fund (a)		1,026,173		76,121,513
iShares S&P 100 Index Fund (a)		1,232,942		70,314,682
Market Vectors Agribusiness ETF		1,748,605		82,446,726
SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust		2,843,618		356,874,059
SPDR S&P International Dividend ETF		316,814		14,728,683
Technology Select Sector SPDR Fund ETF		3,570,174		90,860,928
Vanguard Dividend Appreciation Index Fund ETF		1,661,452		90,781,737
Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF		3,228,943		269,745,898
Total Investment Company Securities (Cost $2,262,827,924)				2,266,366,469

Short-Term Investment—38.6%

Security Description	Par Amount		Value
Repurchase Agreement—38.6%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement, dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $1,421,517,579 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $86,000,000 Federal National Mortgage Association at 0.45% due 09/06/13 with a value of $86,107,500; $30,000,000 Federal National Mortgage Association at 0.00% due 01/17/12 with a value of $30,000,000; $133,430,000 Federal National Mortgage Association at 0.00% due 06/06/12 with a value of $133,363,285; $100,000,000 Federal Home Loan Bank at 1.125% due 05/18/12 with a value of $100,500,000; $269,000,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. at 0.50% due 08/23/13 with a value of $269,672,500; $86,000,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. at 0.55% due 09/09/13 with a value of $86,215,000; $196,610,000 U.S. Treasury Notes at 0.125% due 09/30/13 with a value of $196,118,475; $38,355,000 U.S. Treasury Notes at 0.375% due 07/31/13 with a value of $38,450,888; $100,000,000 U.S. Treasury Notes at 1.375% due 03/15/12 with a value of $101,066,400; and by $396,370,000 U.S. Treasury Notes at 1.375% due 11/30/15 with a value of $408,460,078.	$	1,421,516,000	$	1,421,516,000
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $1,421,516,000)				1,421,516,000
Total Investments—100.1% (Cost $3,684,343,924#)				3,687,882,469
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(0.1)%				(2,137,363	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	3,685,745,106

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $3,737,271,681. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $49,830,823 and $(99,220,035), respectively, resulting in net unrealized depreciation of $(49,389,212) for federal income tax purposes.

(a) Affiliated Issuer. (See Note 8 of Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in the investments of affiliated issuers.)

(b) Non-income producing security.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2			Level 3		Total
Investment Company Securities	$	2,266,366,469	$	—			—	$	2,266,366,469
Total Short-Term Investments*		—		1,421,516,000			—		1,421,516,000
Total Investments	$	2,266,366,469	$	1,421,516,000			—	$	3,687,882,469
Swap Contracts**
Swap Contracts at Value (Assets)	$	—	$	13,636,280		$	—	$	13,636,280
Swap Contracts at Value (Liabilities)		—		(82,249	)		—		(82,249	)
Total Swap Contracts	$	—	$	13,554,031		$	—	$	13,544,031

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

** Swap contracts are presented at value.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)	$	987,220,688
Affiliated investment at value (b)		1,279,145,781
Repurchase Agreement		1,421,516,000
Cash		486,191
Receivable for investments sold		1,000,000
Receivable for shares sold		21,746,124
Dividends receivable		3,070,680
Interest receivable		790
Swap interest receivable		4,336,453
Swaps at market value		13,636,280
Total assets		3,732,158,987
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		31,031,648
Cash collateral for swaps		12,300,000
Shares redeemed		3,045
Swaps at market value		82,249
Swap interest		234,411
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		1,933,268
Distribution and service fees - Class B		723,965
Administration fees		13,619
Custodian and accounting fees		11,032
Deferred trustees’ fees		5,674
Other expenses		74,970
Total liabilities		46,413,881
Net Assets	$	3,685,745,106
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	3,721,492,445
Accumulated net realized loss		(52,834,241	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments and swap contracts		17,092,576
Distributions in excess of net investment income		(5,674	)
Net Assets	$	3,685,745,106
Net Assets
Class B	$	3,685,745,106
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class B		387,032,131
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class B	$	9.52

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreement and affiliated investments, was $965,482,677.

(b) Identified cost of affiliated investment was $1,297,345,247.

Statement of Operations

For the Period Ended December 31, 2011*

Investment Income
Dividends from Underlying ETFs	$	8,101,663
Dividends from affiliated investments		18,466,165
Interest		34,861
Total investment income		26,602,689
Expenses
Management fees		7,645,384
Administration fees		54,443
Custodian and accounting fees		89,889
Distribution and service fees - Class B		2,808,872
Audit and tax services		32,875
Legal		80,345
Trustees’ fees and expenses		24,598
Shareholder reporting		60,381
Insurance		1,510
Organizational expense		1,300
Miscellaneous		9,384
Total expenses		10,808,981
Less management fee waiver		(491,820	)
Net expenses		10,317,161
Net investment income		16,285,528
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments, Affiliated Investments and Swaps Contracts
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments		(32,098,434	)
Affiliated investments		(24,721,453	)
Swap contracts		37,375,778
Capital gain distributions from Underlying ETFs		1,184,913
Capital gain distributions from affiliates		882,572
Net realized loss on investments, investments in affiliates, swap contracts, capital gain distributions from Underlying ETFs and capital gain distributions from affiliates		(17,376,624	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation on:
Investments		21,738,011
Affiliated investments		(18,199,466	)
Swap contracts		13,554,031
Net change in unrealized appreciation on investments, investments in affiliates and swap contracts		17,092,576
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments and swap contracts		(284,048	)
Net Increase in Net Assets from Operations	$	16,001,480

* Commencement of operations was 5/2/2011.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio

Statement of Changes in Net Assets

	Period Ended December 31, 2011*
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	16,285,528
Net realized loss on investments, affiliated investments, swap contracts, capital gain distributions from Underlying ETFs and capital gain distributions from affiliates		(17,376,624	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation on investments, affiliated investments and swap contracts		17,092,576
Net increase in net assets resulting from operations		16,001,480
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class B		(24,070,869	)
From net realized capital gains
Class B		(27,949,913	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(52,020,782	)
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		3,721,764,408
Net Increase in Net Assets		3,685,745,106
Net assets at end of period	$	3,685,745,106
Distributions in excess of net investment income at end of period	$	(5,674	)

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Period Ended December 31, 2011*
	Shares			Value
Class B
Sales		382,952,523		$	3,683,490,129
Reinvestments		5,493,219			52,020,782
Redemptions		(1,413,611	)		(13,746,503	)
Net increase		387,032,131		$	3,721,764,408
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	3,721,764,408

* Commencement of operations was 5/2/2011.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class B
	Period Ended December 31, 2011(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.00
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.09
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments		(0.44	)
Total from investment operations		(0.35	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.06	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.07	)
Total distributions		(0.13	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	9.52
Total Return (%)		(3.41	)**
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.96	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)(d)		0.92	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)(e)		1.45	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		74.7
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	3,685.7

* Annualized.

** Not annualized.

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Commencement of operations was 5/2/2011.

(c) The ratio of operating expenses to average net assets does not include expenses of the Underlying ETFs in which the Portfolio invests.

(d) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

(e) Recognition of net investment income by the Portfolio is affected by the timing of the declaration of dividends by the Underlying ETFs in which it invests.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio (the “Portfolio”) (commenced operations on May 2, 2011), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class B Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio.

The Portfolio allocates its assets in a broad range of asset classes, primarily through other investment companies known as exchange traded funds (“Underlying ETFs”), involving primarily series of the iShares^® Trust and iShares^®, Inc., but the Portfolio also has the ability to invest in series sponsored by other companies.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Investments in the Underlying ETFs are valued at the closing market quotation for their shares. The net asset value of the Portfolio is calculated based on the market values of the Underlying ETFs in which the Portfolio invests. For more information about the use of fair value pricing by the Underlying ETFs, please refer to the prospectuses for the Underlying ETFs.

Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Swap contracts are marked-to-market daily based on quotations and prices supplied by market makers, broker-dealers and pricing services. Such quotations and prices are derived utilizing significant observable data, including the underlying investments. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns will remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service for three fiscal years after the returns are filed.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to futures transactions, foreign currency transactions, swap transactions, options transactions, premium amortization adjustments, paydown transactions, contingent payment debt instrument adjustments, forward transactions, deferred trustees’ compensation, and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with BlackRock Financial Management, Inc. (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the period ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$7,645,384		0.800	%	First $100 Million
		0.750	%	$100 Million to $300 Million
		0.700	%	$300 Million to $600 Million
		0.675	%	$600 Million to $1 Billion
		0.650	%	Over $1 Billion

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Management Fee Waiver - The Subadviser voluntarily agreed to waive its entire subadvisory fee through July 31, 2011. Also through July 31, 2011, the Adviser voluntarily agreed to waive a portion of the management fee in an amount equal to the subadvisory fees waived. Amounts waived for the period ended December 31, 2011 are shown as a management fee waiver in the Statement of Operations.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Expense Limitation Agreement - The Adviser has entered into an expense limitation agreement with the Trust (“Expense Limitation Agreement”) in the interest of limiting expenses of the Portfolio. The Expense Limitation Agreement shall continue in effect with respect to the Portfolio until October 31, 2012. Pursuant to that Expense Limitation Agreement, the Adviser has agreed to waive or limit its fees and to assume other expenses so that the total annual operating expenses of the Portfolio other than interest, taxes, brokerage commissions, other expenditures which are capitalized or expensed in accordance with GAAP, other extraordinary expenses not incurred in the ordinary course of the Portfolio’s business, and Underlying ETFs fees and expenses but including amounts payable pursuant to a plan adopted in accordance with Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act, are limited to the following expense ratio as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets:

Maximum Expense Ratio under current
Expense Limitation  Agreement

Class B

1.15%

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

If in any year in which the Management Agreement is still in effect, the estimated aggregate operating expenses of the Portfolio for the fiscal year are less than the Maximum Expense Ratio for that year, subject to approval by the Trust’s Board, the Adviser shall be entitled to reimbursement by the Portfolio to the extent that the charge does not cause the expenses in such subsequent year to exceed the Maximum Expense Ratio as stated above. The Portfolio is not obligated to repay any expense paid by the Adviser more than five years after the end of the fiscal year in which such expense was incurred.

Distribution Agreement and Plan - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B distribution plan provides that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B Shares. However, under the Class B distribution agreement, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B distribution plan are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the period ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B distribution plan and distribution agreement the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the period ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases				Sales
U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$	—	$	3,306,401,450	$	—	$	986,753,602

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments

Swap Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into swap contracts. Swap contracts are derivatives agreements to exchange the return generated by one instrument for the return generated by another instrument. The payment streams are calculated by reference to a specified index and agreed upon notional amount. The term “specified index” includes, but is not limited to, currencies, fixed interest rates, prices and total return on interest rate indices, fixed income indices, stock indices and commodity indices (as well as amounts derived from arithmetic operations on these indices). A Portfolio will usually enter into swaps on a net basis, i.e., the two payment streams are netted out in a cash settlement on the payment date or dates specified in the instrument, with the Portfolio receiving or paying, as the case may be, only the net amount of the two payments. The Portfolio’s obligations under a swap agreement will be accrued daily (offset against any amounts owing to the Portfolio) and any accrued but unpaid net amounts owed to a swap counterparty will be covered by designating the segregation, either on its records or with the Trust’s custodian, of cash or other liquid assets, to avoid any potential leveraging of the Portfolio. The Portfolio may enter into swap transactions with counterparties that are approved by the investment adviser in accordance with guidelines established by the Board. These guidelines provide for a minimum credit rating for each counterparty and various credit enhancement techniques (for example, collateralization of amounts due from counterparties) to limit exposure to counterparties that have lower credit ratings.

An index swap is an agreement to swap cash flows on a notional amount based on changes in the values of the reference indices.

Currency Swaps: A currency swap is an agreement to exchange cash flows on a notional amount of two or more currencies based on the relative value differential among them. Such swaps may involve initial and final exchanges that correspond to the agreed upon notional amount. Currency swaps usually involve the delivery of the entire principal value of one designated currency in exchange for the other designated currency. Therefore, the entire principal value of a currency swap is subject to the risk that the other party to the swap will default on its contractual delivery obligations. If there is a default by the counterparty, the Portfolio may have contractual remedies pursuant to the agreements related to the transaction.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments - continued

Interest Rate Swaps: The Portfolio may enter into interest rate swaps and the purchase or sale of related caps and floors. The Portfolio may enter into these transactions primarily to manage its exposure to interest rates, to protect against currency fluctuations, or to preserve a return or spread on a particular investment. The Portfolio is subject to interest rate risk exposure in the normal course of pursuing its investment objectives. Because the Portfolio has exposure to fixed income securities, the value of these securities may decrease if interest rates rise. To help hedge against this risk and to maintain its ability to generate income at prevailing market rates, the Portfolio may enter into interest rate swap contracts. Interest rate swaps are arrangements between two parties to exchange cash flows based on a notional principal amount, to manage the Portfolio’s exposure to interest rate risk. Interest rate swap contracts are marked-to-market daily based upon quotations from market makers and the change, if any, is recorded as unrealized gain or loss. Payments received or made are recorded as realized gains or losses. The Portfolio could be exposed to credit or market risk due to unfavorable changes in the fluctuation of interest rates or if the counterparty defaults on its obligation to perform. Risks may exceed amounts recognized on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The purchase of a cap entitles the purchaser, to the extent that a specific index exceeds a predetermined interest rate, to receive payments of interest on a notional principal amount from the party selling such cap. The purchase of a floor entitles the purchaser to receive payments on a notional principal amount from the party selling such floor to the extent that a specified index falls below a predetermined interest rate or amount. The Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit risk, as opposed to investment and other types of risk, in respect of interest rate swaps is typically the discounted net value of the cash flows to be received from the counterparty over the contract’s remaining life, to the extent that amount is positive, plus the cost of entering into a similar transaction with another counterparty, if possible.

Swap agreements are marked to market daily. The change in value, if any, is recorded as unrealized gain or loss in the Statement of Operations. A liquidation payment received or made at the termination of the swap is recorded as realized gain or loss in the Statement of Operations. Net periodic payments are included as part of realized gain (loss) on the Statement of Operations.

The swaps in which the Portfolio may engage may include instruments under which one party pays a single or periodic fixed amount(s) (or premium), and the other party pays periodic amounts based on the movement of a specified index. Swaps do not involve the delivery of securities, other underlying assets, or principal. The Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit risk, as opposed to investment and other types of risk, in respect of swaps is typically the discounted net value of the cash flows to be received from the counterparty over the contract’s remaining life to the extent that such amount is positive, plus the cost of entering into a similar transaction with another counterparty, if possible.

The use of swaps is a highly specialized activity that involves investment techniques and risks different from those associated with ordinary portfolio securities transactions. If the Adviser or Subadviser is incorrect in its forecasts of market values, interest rates, and currency exchange rates, the investment performance of the Portfolio would be less favorable than it would have been if this investment technique were not used.

At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had the following derivatives, categorized by risk exposure:

	Asset Derivatives			Liability Derivatives
Risk Exposure	Statement of Assets and Liabilities Location	Fair Value		Statement of Assets and Liabilities Location	Fair Value
Interest Rate	Swaps at market value	$	13,636,280	Swaps at market value	$	82,249

Transactions in derivative instruments during the period ended December 31, 2011, were as follows:

Statement of Operations Location - Net Realized Gain (Loss)	Interest Rate
Swap contracts	$	37,375,778
Statement of Operations Location - Net Change in Unrealized Gain (Loss)	Interest Rate
Swap contracts	$	13,554,031

For the period ended December 31, 2011, the average amount or number per contract outstanding for each derivative type was as follows:

Derivative Description	Average Notional or Face Amount(a)
Swap contracts	$	524,575,000

(a) Averages are based on activity levels during 2011.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Swap Agreements

Open interest rate swap agreements at December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Pay/Receive Floating Rate	Floating Rate Index		Fixed Rate			Maturity Date		Counterparty	Notional Amount		Market Value			Upfront Premium Paid/(Received)		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
Pay		USD 3ML		2.343	%		10/17/2021	Credit Suisse Group AG		USD 100,000,000	$	3,005,298		$	—	$	3,005,298
Pay		USD 3ML		2.150	%		9/22/2021	Deutsche Bank AG		USD 513,000,000		6,747,191			—		6,747,191
Pay		USD 3ML		1.990	%		9/27/2021	Deutsche Bank AG		USD   60,000,000		(82,249	)		—		(82,249	)
Pay		USD 3ML		2.128	%		10/7/2021	Deutsche Bank AG		USD   90,000,000		976,830			—		976,830
Pay		USD 3ML		2.163	%		11/3/2021	Deutsche Bank AG		USD 100,000,000		1,323,541			—		1,323,541
Pay		USD 3ML		2.143	%		12/9/2021	Goldman Sachs & Co.		USD 150,000,000		1,583,420			—		1,583,420
Total											$	13,554,031		$	—	$	13,554,031

7. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

8. Transactions in Securities of Affiliated Issuers

The Portfolio does not invest in the Underlying ETFs for the purpose of exercising control; however, investments by the Portfolio within its principal investment strategies may represent a significant portion of the Underlying ETF’s net assets. Transactions in the Underlying ETFs for the period from May 2, 2011 (commencement of operations) through December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Underlying ETF	Number of Shares Held at May 2, 2011*		Shares Purchased		Shares Sold			Number of Shares Held at December 31, 2011
iShares Barclays 1-3 Year Credit Bond Fund		—		1,256,638		(578,536	)		678,102
iShares Barclays 7-10 Year Treasury Bond Fund		—		315,459		(315,459	)		—
iShares Barclays Aggregate Bond Fund		—		4,852,664		(2,010,051	)		2,842,613
iShares Barclays TIPS Bond Fund		—		67,762		(67,762	)		—
iShares Dow Jones EPAC Select Dividend Index Fund		—		1,070,202		(573,358	)		496,844
iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond Fund		—		1,408,542		(351,695	)		1,056,847
iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond Fund		—		1,277,814		(417,803	)		860,011
iShares MSCI EAFE Index Fund		—		9,609,717		(1,836,879	)		7,772,838
iShares MSCI Germany Index Fund		—		1,391,415		(17,285	)		1,374,130
iShares MSCI Japan Index Fund		—		8,733,992		(188,274	)		8,545,718
iShares MSCI Sweden Index Fund		—		450,848		(450,848	)		—
iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund		—		709,762		—			709,762
iShares Russell 3000 Index Fund		—		1,848,033		(821,860	)		1,026,173
iShares S&P 100 Index Fund		—		1,848,505		(615,563	)		1,232,942

* Commencement of operations.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

8. Transactions in Securities of Affiliated Issuers - continued

Underlying ETF	Net Realized Gain/(Loss) on Sales of Underlying ETFs			Capital Gain Distributions from Underlying ETFs		Dividend Income from Underlying ETFs		Ending Value as of December 31, 2011
iShares Barclays 1-3 Year Credit Bond Fund	$	(550,975	)	$	—	$	537,487	$	70,658,229
iShares Barclays 7-10 Year Treasury Bond Fund		379,857			—		51,071		—
iShares Barclays Aggregate Bond Fund		4,031,798			882,572		4,316,716		313,398,083
iShares Barclays TIPS Bond Fund		(8,030	)		—		42,271		—
iShares Dow Jones EPAC Select Dividend Index Fund		(2,129,133	)		—		500,479		14,751,298
iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond Fund		(1,557,315	)		—		2,763,860		94,513,827
iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond Fund		670,888			—		1,448,661		97,834,851
iShares MSCI EAFE Index Fund		(16,169,914	)		—		5,926,337		384,988,666
iShares MSCI Germany Index Fund		(14,241	)		—		—		26,410,779
iShares MSCI Japan Index Fund		(122,119	)		—		821,815		77,851,491
iShares MSCI Sweden Index Fund		(1,591,062	)		—		—		—
iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund		—			—		246,866		52,302,362
iShares Russell 3000 Index Fund		(4,714,819	)		—		1,061,796		76,121,513
iShares S&P 100 Index Fund		(2,946,388	)		—		748,806		70,314,682
	$	(24,721,453	)	$	882,572	$	18,466,165	$	1,279,145,781

9. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio and the Underlying ETFs invest in securities and enter into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio and the Underlying ETFs may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio or the Underlying ETFs; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio and the Underlying ETFs may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio or the Underlying ETFs have unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio and the Underlying ETFs to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio and in the Underlying ETFs in which it invests.

10. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the period ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Ordinary Income	Long-Term Capital Gain		Total
$51,174,626	$	846,156	$	52,020,782

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Depreciation			Loss Carryforwards		Total
$—	$	93,517	$	(35,835,181	)	$	—	$	(35,741,664	)

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

10. Income Tax Information - continued

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses. At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not have any capital loss carryforwards.

11. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations, the statement of changes in net assets, and the financial highlights for the period from May 2, 2011 (commencement of operations) to December 31, 2011. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audit included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the transfer agent and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, and the results of its operations, the changes in its net assets, and the financial highlights for the period from May 2, 2011 (commencement of operations) to December 31, 2011, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 28, 2012

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

22

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust BlackRock High Yield Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Managed by BlackRock Financial Management, Inc.

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A and B shares of the BlackRock High Yield Portfolio returned 2.50% and 2.34%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Barclays Capital U.S. Corporate High Yield 2% Issuer Capped Index¹, returned 4.96%.

Market Environment/Conditions

The high yield market, as measured by the Barclays Capital U.S. Corporate High Yield 2% Issuer Capped Index, returned 4.96%, in 2011, outperforming higher-quality fixed income sectors on a risk-adjusted return. Markets were volatile over the year, with a major correction occurring in the third quarter, followed by a rally in risk assets during the fourth quarter. Despite a backdrop of increased volatility, strong technicals, coupled with improving credit conditions, continued to support high yield assets.

Significant issuance over the past two years has moved forward most of the near-term financing needs, and has permitted issuers to extend maturities well into the future. However, we expect 2012 issuance to remain above historical averages. A vibrant primary market priced $215 billion worth of high yield bonds, with the majority of volume dedicated to issuer refinancing to enhance liquidity profiles. For the year, only 27 companies defaulted for a total of $21.2 billion, bringing the 12-month default rate to 1.8% for high yield bonds and 0.4% for leveraged loans, well below long-term averages. Importantly, at period end, we believe current spread levels continue to imply a default rate considerably above what will likely be realized over the next few years. Benign credit conditions and positive technicals suggest that default rates will remain relatively low through 2013, making high yield spread levels attractive in our view. Strong investor demand led to solid inflows, with high yield mutual funds capturing $15 billion in 2011.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

The Portfolio’s underperformance relative to its benchmark, the Barclays Capital U.S. Corporate High Yield 2% Issuer Capped Index, for the 12-month period was attributable to an underweight toward the higher end of the credit quality range earlier in the year, as well as security selection within the non-rated credit tier. Meanwhile, security selection in higher-rated names contributed to relative returns. Among the sectors, security selection in the banking, automotive and non-captive diversified sectors hindered performance, but stronger selection in the wirelines, wireless, and electric sectors boosted results.

On an asset allocation basis, Portfolio exposure to bank loans and preferred securities was negative, as these asset classes underperformed high yield bonds, but we maintained positions that were favorably priced and were the most attractive risk-adjusted instruments in the capital structure.

As of December 31, 2011, the Portfolio was in line with the benchmark allocation to higher-rated issues, while it had a moderate underweight in lower-rated issues. The Portfolio is overweight in the media-cable, metals & mining and independent energy sectors, with underweights in gaming, banking and technology. The Portfolio also maintained allocations of 6% to bank loans, 1% to preferred securities and 2% to convertible bonds.

During the period, the Portfolio selectively participated in the high yield primary calendar, seeking higher-quality new issues illustrating solid risk-reward profiles and stable fundamentals. The Portfolio also continued to add new-issue, senior-secured bonds offering improved downside protection. During the first quarter, we were positioned for an improving economy with shorter-duration names exhibiting equity beta in the Portfolio. During the second and third quarters, we grew more cautious about the pace of economic growth and became more conservative by reducing equity beta and migrating towards higher-quality issues with longer maturities offering attractive carry (i.e., income). As risk markets rallied in the fourth quarter, we removed some hedges and strategically added back risk where we believed it was appropriate.

Our focus remained on issuers that generate consistent cash flows and provide clear earnings visibility. The Portfolio continued to find value within the higher-quality (BB, B) ratings part of the high yield space.

In our opinion, the high yield asset class has an attractive longer-term risk/return profile, but short-term uncertainty around global policy continues to be the driver of risk. While indications of stability are turning the overall outlook more bullish, unresolved issues in Europe still present headwinds for the global economy. We expect strong credit fundamentals, positive technicals and relatively attractive valuations to persist against a challenging macroeconomic backdrop. At period end, we saw value in the highest tiers of the high yield credit quality range and remain focused on high-quality companies with long-term value and strong cash flows. Notwithstanding the volatile market environment, we expect the high yield credit market to remain well supported in 2012 as investor demand for yield in a volatile, low-rate environment remains a priority.

James Keenan

Derek Schoenhofen

Mitch Garfin

Portfolio Managers

BlackRock Financial Management, Inc.

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Managed by BlackRock Financial Management, Inc.

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

* This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
HCA, Inc.		2.0
Clear Channel Worldwide Holdings, Inc.		1.7
CIT Group, Inc.		1.5
Delphi Holdings Corp.		1.5
Ally Financial, Inc.		1.5
Ford Motor Credit Co. LLC		1.2
OGX Petroleo e Gas Participacoes S.A.		1.2
Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC/EFIH Finance, Inc.		1.1
Sprint Nextel Corp.		1.1
Novelis, Inc.		1.0

Top Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities		69.4
Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities		15.0
Common Stocks		4.0
Preferred Stocks		2.1
Convertible Bonds		1.4
Loan Participation		0.7
Cash & Cash Equivalents		7.4

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio managed by

BlackRock Financial Management, Inc. vs.

Barclays Capital U.S. Corporate High Yield 2% Issuer Capped Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year		Since Inception3
Blackrock High Yield Portfolio—Class A		2.50%		6.40%		7.96%		—
Class B		2.34%		—		—		7.74%
Barclays Capital U.S. Corporate High Yield 2% Issuer Capped Index1		4.96%		7.74%		8.96%		—

The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other class of shares because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹The Barclays Capital U.S. Corporate High Yield 2% Issuer Capped Index is composed of fixed rate noninvestment grade debt with at least one year remaining to maturity that are dollar-denominated, nonconvertible and have an outstanding par value of at least $100 million. It limits issue exposure to a 2% maximum.

²“Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gains distributions.

³Inception of Class A shares is 8/30/1996. Inception of Class B shares is 4/28/2008.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A
Actual		0.65%	$	1,000.00	$	984.70	$	3.25
Hypothetical*		0.65%		1,000.00		1,021.92		3.31
Class B
Actual		0.90%	$	1,000.00	$	983.40	$	4.50
Hypothetical*		0.90%		1,000.00		1,020.66		4.58

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—63.8% of Net Assets

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Aerospace & Defense—2.0%
Aviation Capital Group Corp. 6.750%, 04/06/21 (144A)		1,070,000	$	1,009,823
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. 6.875%, 03/15/18 (144A)		790,000		778,150
7.125%, 03/15/21 (144A)		1,430,000		1,408,550
Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. 10.000%, 06/01/17		1,646,000		1,695,380
National Air Cargo Group, Inc. 12.375%, 09/02/15 (a)		4,153,329		4,251,570
Sequa Corp. 11.750%, 12/01/15 (144A)		1,980,000		2,118,600
13.500%, 12/01/15 (144A)		4,375,573		4,703,741
				15,965,814
Airlines—0.8%
American Airlines Pass-Through Trust Series 2011-2 Class A 8.625%, 10/15/21 (b)		1,550,000		1,581,000
Delta Air Lines, Inc. Series B 9.750%, 12/17/16		287,780		299,291
United Air Lines, Inc. 12.750%, 07/15/12		2,946,240		3,100,918
US Airways Pass-Through Trust 2011-1, Class C Series C 10.875%, 10/22/14		1,500,000		1,471,875
				6,453,084
Auto Components—0.2%
Delphi Corp. 6.125%, 05/15/21 (144A)		970,000		1,003,950
Lear Corp. 5.750%, 08/01/14		1,395,000		13,950
Series B 8.500%, 12/01/13		1,530,000		15,300
Stanadyne Corp. Series 1 10.000%, 08/15/14		160,000		136,800
Stanadyne Holdings, Inc. 12.000%, 02/15/15		125,000		117,031
				1,287,031
Automobiles—0.4%
Ford Motor Co. 7.450%, 07/16/31 (b)		2,890,000		3,482,450
Beverages—0.1%
Cott Beverages USA, Inc. 8.125%, 09/01/18 (b)		580,000	$	629,300
Biotechnology—0.1%
QHP Royalty Sub LLC 10.250%, 03/15/15 (144A)		594,457		601,312
Building Products—0.4%
Building Materials Corp. of America 7.000%, 02/15/20 (144A)		360,000		388,800
6.750%, 05/01/21 (144A)		2,480,000		2,610,200
				2,999,000
Capital Markets—1.0%
American Capital, Ltd. 7.960%, 12/31/13 (b)		1,210,000		1,222,863
E*Trade Financial Corp. 12.500%, 11/30/17		2,980,000		3,382,300
Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. 5.375%, 10/17/12 (EUR) (c)		350,000		120,311
8.800%, 03/01/15 (c)		489,000		127,751
Series 1937 4.750%, 01/16/14 (EUR) (c)		2,140,000		735,614
Series 5921 0.000%, 02/05/14 (EUR) (c) (d)		4,500,000		1,576,037
Series H 5.750%, 05/17/13 (c)		1,740,000		454,575
				7,619,451
Chemicals—2.6%
American Pacific Corp. 9.000%, 02/01/15 (b)		150,000		146,250
Celanese U.S. Holdings LLC 6.625%, 10/15/18 (b)		1,040,000		1,110,200
5.875%, 06/15/21 (b)		3,138,000		3,243,907
Chemtura Corp. 7.875%, 09/01/18		780,000		807,300
Hexion US Finance Corp./Hexion Nova Scotia Finance ULC 9.000%, 11/15/20 (b)		1,555,000		1,290,650
Huntsman International LLC 8.625%, 03/15/21 (b)		530,000		564,450
Koppers, Inc. 7.875%, 12/01/19		700,000		745,500
Lyondell Chemical Co. 11.000%, 05/01/18		6,469,909		7,100,725

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Chemicals—(Continued)
Momentive Performance Materials, Inc. 12.500%, 06/15/14		655,000	$	697,575
11.500%, 12/01/16 (b)		1,495,000		1,121,250
9.000%, 01/15/21		355,000		271,575
Nexeo Solutions LLC/Nexeo Solutions Finance Corp. 8.375%, 03/01/18 (144A)		635,000		635,000
PolyOne Corp. 7.375%, 09/15/20 (b)		690,000		714,150
Solutia, Inc. 7.875%, 03/15/20		2,065,000		2,256,013
TPC Group LLC 8.250%, 10/01/17		75,000		75,375
				20,779,920
Commercial Banks—1.8%
CIT Group, Inc. 7.000%, 05/01/15		2,490,000		2,498,092
7.000%, 05/02/16 (144A)		1,132,000		1,133,415
7.000%, 05/01/17 (b)		5,742,164		5,749,342
7.000%, 05/02/17 (144A)		4,505,000		4,505,000
				13,885,849
Commercial Services & Supplies—1.3%
ACCO Brands Corp. 10.625%, 03/15/15		888,000		992,340
ARAMARK Corp. 3.929%, 02/01/15 (e)		480,000		465,600
8.500%, 02/01/15		438,000		451,140
Avis Budget Car Rental LLC/Avis Budget Finance, Inc. 8.250%, 01/15/19		395,000		394,013
Brickman Group Holdings, Inc. 9.125%, 11/01/18 (144A)		79,000		70,705
Casella Waste Systems, Inc. 7.750%, 02/15/19		2,214,000		2,175,255
Clean Harbors, Inc. 7.625%, 08/15/16		1,020,000		1,088,850
Harland Clarke Holdings Corp. 6.000%, 05/15/15 (e)		50,000		33,375
9.500%, 05/15/15		45,000		33,075
Iron Mountain, Inc. 7.750%, 10/01/19 (b)		1,160,000		1,231,050
Mobile Mini, Inc. 7.875%, 12/01/20		1,135,000		1,146,350
Commercial Services & Supplies—(Continued)
Rental Service Corp. 9.500%, 12/01/14		190,000	$	196,175
Tropicana Entertainment LLC/Tropicana Financial Corp. 9.625%, 12/15/14 (a) (c)		70,000		7
WCA Waste Corp. 7.500%, 06/15/19 (144A) (b)		1,870,000		1,898,050
West Corp. 8.625%, 10/01/18		445,000		451,675
				10,627,660
Communications Equipment—0.1%
Avaya, Inc. 9.750%, 11/01/15		770,000		696,850
Consumer Finance—2.6%
Ally Financial, Inc. 8.000%, 03/15/20		610,000		626,775
7.500%, 09/15/20		620,000		628,525
8.000%, 11/01/31		5,540,000		5,373,800
Credit Acceptance Corp. 9.125%, 02/01/17		1,070,000		1,123,500
9.125%, 02/01/17 (144A)		140,000		146,650
Ford Motor Credit Co. LLC 7.000%, 04/15/15		7,470,000		8,048,925
12.000%, 05/15/15		300,000		369,747
5.875%, 08/02/21		2,884,000		3,011,233
General Motors Financial Co., Inc. 6.750%, 06/01/18 (144A)		780,000		799,500
Springleaf Finance Corp. Series MTN 6.900%, 12/15/17		920,000		667,000
				20,795,655
Containers & Packaging—1.8%
Ball Corp. 6.750%, 09/15/20 (b)		540,000		589,950
Berry Plastics Corp. 8.250%, 11/15/15 (b)		1,895,000		2,027,650
Graphic Packaging International, Inc. 9.500%, 06/15/17		590,000		649,000
7.875%, 10/01/18		815,000		872,050
Greif, Inc. 7.750%, 08/01/19		690,000		748,650
Longview Fibre Paper & Packaging, Inc. 8.000%, 06/01/16 (144A)		950,000		954,750

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Containers & Packaging—(Continued)
Pregis Corp. 12.375%, 10/15/13		95,000	$	91,200
Reynolds Group Issuer, Inc./Reynolds Group Issuer LLC 8.750%, 10/15/16 (144A)		2,480,000		3,147,005
7.125%, 04/15/19 (144A)		745,000		761,762
7.875%, 08/15/19 (144A)		2,545,000		2,672,250
6.875%, 02/15/21 (144A)		725,000		725,000
8.250%, 02/15/21 (144A)		195,000		173,550
Rock-Tenn Co. 9.250%, 03/15/16		266,000		283,290
Sealed Air Corp. 8.375%, 09/15/21 (144A) (b)		705,000		782,550
				14,478,657
Diversified Consumer Services—0.2%
Affinion Group, Inc. 7.875%, 12/15/18		2,220,000		1,887,000
Service Corp. International
7.875%, 02/01/13		60,000		65,250
				1,952,250
Diversified Financial Services—2.5%
Antero Resources Finance Corp. 7.250%, 08/01/19 (144A)		465,000		478,950
CDW LLC/CDW Finance Corp. 11.500%, 10/12/15 (f)		2,250,000		2,373,750
Eksportfinans ASA 0.781%, 04/05/13 (e)		269,000		243,670
Icahn Enterprises L.P./Icahn Enterprises Finance Corp. 7.750%, 01/15/16		220,000		229,350
8.000%, 01/15/18 (b)		6,975,000		7,288,875
KKR Group Finance Co. 6.375%, 09/29/20 (144A) (b)		2,115,000		2,175,599
Leucadia National Corp. 8.125%, 09/15/15		1,262,000		1,332,987
7.125%, 03/15/17		663,000		670,459
Nielsen Finance LLC/Nielsen Finance Co. 11.625%, 02/01/14 (b)		782,000		902,233
7.750%, 10/15/18		3,890,000		4,220,650
				19,916,523
Diversified Telecommunication Services—3.1%
Broadview Networks Holdings, Inc. 11.375%, 09/01/12 (b)		1,629,000		1,311,345
Diversified Telecommunication Services—(Continued)
GCI, Inc. 6.750%, 06/01/21		800,000	$	784,000
ITC DeltaCom, Inc. 10.500%, 04/01/16		780,000		801,450
Level 3 Escrow, Inc. 8.125%, 07/01/19 (144A) (b)		8,792,000		8,682,100
Level 3 Financing, Inc. 9.250%, 11/01/14		201,000		206,528
8.750%, 02/15/17		1,650,000		1,687,125
NII Capital Corp. 7.625%, 04/01/21		2,223,000		2,217,442
Qwest Communications International, Inc. 7.500%, 02/15/14		1,565,000		1,574,820
8.000%, 10/01/15		725,000		776,036
Qwest Corp. 7.500%, 06/15/23		520,000		522,755
Sprint Capital Corp. 6.875%, 11/15/28		5,825,000		4,186,719
tw telecom holdings, inc. 8.000%, 03/01/18		620,000		663,400
Windstream Corp. 7.875%, 11/01/17		1,305,000		1,419,188
				24,832,908
Electric Utilities—1.5%
Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC/EFIH Finance, Inc. 10.000%, 12/01/20		9,748,000		10,332,880
FPL Energy National Wind Portfolio LLC 6.125%, 03/25/19 (144A)		60,837		59,895
Ipalco Enterprises, Inc. 7.250%, 04/01/16 (144A)		1,310,000		1,421,350
				11,814,125
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—0.2%
Eagle Parent, Inc. 8.625%, 05/01/19 (144A) (b)		1,510,000		1,449,600
Energy Equipment & Services—1.4%
Calfrac Holdings L.P. 7.500%, 12/01/20 (144A) (b)		1,795,000		1,759,100
Cie Generale de Geophysique—Veritas 6.500%, 06/01/21		380,000		370,500
Exterran Holdings, Inc. 7.250%, 12/01/18 (b)		650,000		620,750

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Energy Equipment & Services—(Continued)
Forbes Energy Services, Ltd. 9.000%, 06/15/19		925,000	$	869,500
Frac Tech Services LLC/Frac Tech Finance, Inc. 7.625%, 11/15/18 (144A)		3,185,000		3,352,212
Key Energy Services, Inc. 6.750%, 03/01/21		1,550,000		1,557,750
Oil States International, Inc. 6.500%, 06/01/19 (b)		2,280,000		2,342,700
				10,872,512
Food Products—0.2%
Darling International, Inc. 8.500%, 12/15/18		815,000		908,725
JBS USA LLC/JBS USA Finance, Inc. 11.625%, 05/01/14 (b)		265,000		301,106
				1,209,831
Gas Utilities—0.8%
Energy Future Holdings Corp. 10.000%, 01/15/20		6,140,000		6,477,700
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—0.6%
Biomet, Inc. 10.000%, 10/15/17		570,000		618,450
10.375%, 10/15/17 (f)		430,000		467,625
DJO Finance LLC/DJO Finance Corp. 10.875%, 11/15/14		2,470,000		2,315,625
7.750%, 04/15/18 (b)		260,000		200,850
Teleflex, Inc. 6.875%, 06/01/19		805,000		843,238
				4,445,788
Health Care Providers & Services—5.5%
ExamWorks Group, Inc. 9.000%, 07/15/19 (144A)		89,000		80,990
Fresenius Medical Care U.S. Finance Inc. 6.500%, 09/15/18 (144A)		578,000		608,345
6.875%, 07/15/17		90,000		96,300
Fresenius U.S. Finance II, Inc. 9.000%, 07/15/15 (144A)		870,000		979,838
HCA, Inc. 6.500%, 02/15/20		5,235,000		5,444,400
7.875%, 02/15/20		465,000		504,525
7.250%, 09/15/20		9,500,000		10,070,000
7.500%, 02/15/22 (b)		1,925,000		1,973,125
Health Care Providers & Services—(Continued)
Health Management Associates, Inc. 7.375%, 01/15/20 (144A)		1,595,000	$	1,662,787
IASIS Healthcare LLC/IASIS Capital Corp. 8.375%, 05/15/19		2,050,000		1,798,875
IMS Health, Inc. 12.500%, 03/01/18 (144A)		4,955,000		5,599,150
INC Research LLC 11.500%, 07/15/19 (144A)		1,115,000		1,003,500
inVentiv Health, Inc. 10.000%, 08/15/18 (144A)		1,180,000		1,085,600
Omnicare, Inc. 7.750%, 06/01/20		2,965,000		3,198,494
Priory Group No. 3 Plc 7.000%, 02/15/18 (GBP)		111,000		156,924
Symbion Inc. 8.000%, 06/15/16 (b)		950,000		882,313
Tenet Healthcare Corp. 10.000%, 05/01/18		2,268,000		2,602,530
6.250%, 11/01/18 (144A)		965,000		984,300
8.875%, 07/01/19		3,807,000		4,292,392
				43,024,388
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—1.6%
Caesars Entertainment Operating Co., Inc. 11.250%, 06/01/17		510,000		543,787
Diamond Resorts Corp. 12.000%, 08/15/18		3,740,000		3,702,600
Eldorado Resorts LLC 8.625%, 06/15/19 (144A)		380,000		341,050
Fontainebleau Las Vegas Holdings LLC/Fontainebleau Las Vegas Capital Corp. 10.250%, 06/15/15 (144A) (c)		1,425,000		891
MGM Resorts International 13.000%, 11/15/13		2,060,000		2,456,550
10.375%, 05/15/14		2,900,000		3,327,750
11.125%, 11/15/17		1,090,000		1,248,050
Scientific Games Corp. 8.125%, 09/15/18		275,000		283,250
Scientific Games International, Inc. 9.250%, 06/15/19 (b)		55,000		58,575
Waterford Gaming LLC 8.625%, 09/15/14 (144A) (a)		648,115		330,539
				12,293,042

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Household Durables—1.4%
Beazer Homes USA, Inc. 12.000%, 10/15/17		3,400,000	$	3,629,500
Jarden Corp. 8.000%, 05/01/16		635,000		688,975
Pulte Group, Inc. 6.375%, 05/15/33		180,000		125,550
Ryland Group, Inc. (The) 6.625%, 05/01/20		840,000		789,600
Shea Homes L.P./Shea Homes Funding Corp. 8.625%, 05/15/19 (144A) (b)		3,390,000		3,178,125
Standard Pacific Corp. 10.750%, 09/15/16 (b)		1,610,000		1,698,550
8.375%, 01/15/21		865,000		818,506
				10,928,806
Household Products—0.2%
Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. 9.500%, 06/15/18 (144A)		1,715,000		1,884,356
Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders—2.0%
AES Corp. (The) 7.750%, 10/15/15		835,000		912,237
9.750%, 04/15/16		1,430,000		1,644,500
7.375%, 07/01/21 (144A) (b)		1,810,000		1,959,325
Calpine Construction Finance Co. LP 8.000%, 06/01/16 (144A)		860,000		933,100
Calpine Corp. 7.250%, 10/15/17 (144A) (b)		1,315,000		1,387,325
7.500%, 02/15/21 (144A) (b)		785,000		843,875
7.875%, 01/15/23 (144A)		1,155,000		1,247,400
DPL, Inc. 7.250%, 10/15/21 (144A) (b)		2,760,000		2,987,700
NRG Energy, Inc. 7.375%, 01/15/17 (b)		915,000		951,600
7.625%, 01/15/18		3,290,000		3,306,450
				16,173,512
Insurance—0.3%
CNO Financial Group, Inc. 9.000%, 01/15/18 (144A)		830,000		879,800
Genworth Financial, Inc. 7.625%, 09/24/21 (b)		1,490,000		1,395,467
USI Holdings Corp. 4.332%, 11/15/14 (144A) (e)		80,000		73,400
				2,348,667
Internet Software & Services—0.2%
Equinix, Inc. 7.000%, 07/15/21		870,000	$	920,025
Travelport LLC 5.152%, 09/01/14 (e)		130,000		64,350
9.875%, 09/01/14		30,000		18,000
9.000%, 03/01/16 (b)		390,000		217,425
11.875%, 09/01/16		1,870,000		551,650
6.581%, 12/01/16 (144A) (f)		139,482		98,684
				1,870,134
IT Services—1.4%
First Data Corp. 7.375%, 06/15/19 (144A)		2,855,000		2,697,975
8.250%, 01/15/21 (144A) (b)		3,205,000		2,884,500
12.625%, 01/15/21		2,242,000		1,961,750
SunGard Data Systems, Inc. 7.375%, 11/15/18		1,420,000		1,460,825
7.625%, 11/15/20 (b)		2,000,000		2,065,000
				11,070,050
Machinery—0.6%
Allison Transmission, Inc. 11.000%, 11/01/15 (144A)		1,922,000		2,037,320
B-Corp. Merger Sub, Inc. 8.250%, 06/01/19 (144A)		760,000		718,200
Navistar International Corp. 8.250%, 11/01/21 (b)		189,000		201,994
SPX Corp. 6.875%, 09/01/17 (144A)		495,000		537,075
Titan International, Inc. 7.875%, 10/01/17		1,510,000		1,577,950
				5,072,539
Media—5.4%
AMC Networks, Inc. 7.750%, 07/15/21 (144A) (b)		625,000		682,813
CCH II LLC/CCH II Capital Corp. 13.500%, 11/30/16		2,779,537		3,224,263
CCO Holdings LLC/CCO Holdings Capital Corp. 7.875%, 04/30/18 (b)		220,000		235,675
7.375%, 06/01/20		1,490,000		1,579,400
6.500%, 04/30/21		1,320,000		1,343,100
Cengage Learning Acquisitions, Inc. 10.500%, 01/15/15 (144A) (b)		140,000		101,150

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Media—(Continued)
Checkout Holding Corp. 8.207%, 11/15/15 (144A) (d)		1,640,000	$	877,400
Cinemark U.S.A., Inc. 8.625%, 06/15/19		655,000		715,587
Clear Channel Communications, Inc. 9.000%, 03/01/21		1,510,000		1,279,725
Clear Channel Worldwide Holdings, Inc. Series B 9.250%, 12/15/17		14,382,000		15,604,470
DISH DBS Corp. 6.750%, 06/01/21		2,110,000		2,284,075
EchoStar DBS Corp. 6.625%, 10/01/14		875,000		938,437
EH Holding Corp. 6.500%, 06/15/19 (144A)		1,010,000		1,057,975
Gray Television, Inc. 10.500%, 06/29/15 (b)		2,300,000		2,185,000
Interactive Data Corp. 10.250%, 08/01/18		2,830,000		3,113,000
Interpublic Group of Cos., Inc. (The) 10.000%, 07/15/17		365,000		418,838
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. 8.125%, 05/15/18 (144A)		1,505,000		1,523,812
NAI Entertainment Holdings LLC 8.250%, 12/15/17 (144A)		1,800,000		1,912,500
ProQuest LLC 9.000%, 10/15/18 (144A)		1,585,000		1,291,775
WMG Acquisition Corp. 9.500%, 06/15/16 (144A)		340,000		370,600
11.500%, 10/01/18 (144A) (b)		1,630,000		1,625,925
				42,365,520
Metals & Mining—0.2%
Jaguar Holding Co. II/Jaguar Merger Subordinated, Inc. 9.500%, 12/01/19 (144A)		1,240,000		1,308,200
Old AII, Inc. 9.000%, 12/15/14 (a) (c)		1,665,000		0
10.000%, 12/15/16 (a) (c)		1,350,000		0
				1,308,200
Multiline Retail—0.9%
Dollar General Corp. 11.875%, 07/15/17 (f)		4,393,000		4,876,230
QVC, Inc. 7.125%, 04/15/17 (144A)		645,000		686,925
Multiline Retail—(Continued)
7.500%, 10/01/19 (144A)		910,000	$	980,525
7.375%, 10/15/20 (144A)		760,000		815,100
				7,358,780
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—10.4%
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. 6.250%, 06/01/21 (b)		1,755,000		1,711,125
Arch Coal, Inc. 7.250%, 10/01/20 (b)		1,030,000		1,058,325
7.250%, 06/15/21 (144A) (b)		3,115,000		3,216,237
Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc. 8.625%, 10/15/18 (b)		260,000		263,900
Chesapeake Energy Corp. 9.500%, 02/15/15		225,000		258,750
6.625%, 08/15/20		283,000		304,933
6.875%, 11/15/20 (b)		400,000		430,000
6.125%, 02/15/21 (b)		1,060,000		1,094,450
Chesapeake Midstream Partners LP/CHKM Finance Corp. 5.875%, 04/15/21 (144A)		799,000		802,995
Chesapeake Oilfield Operating LLC/Chesapeake Oilfield Finance, Inc. 6.625%, 11/15/19 (144A) (b)		1,615,000		1,687,675
Coffeyville Resources LLC/Coffeyville Finance, Inc. 9.000%, 04/01/15 (144A)		2,133,000		2,271,645
Concho Resources, Inc. 7.000%, 01/15/21		1,686,000		1,818,772
6.500%, 01/15/22		570,000		598,500
CONSOL Energy, Inc. 8.250%, 04/01/20 (b)		3,745,000		4,156,950
Continental Resources, Inc. 7.125%, 04/01/21 (b)		675,000		735,750
Copano Energy LLC/Copano Energy Finance Corp. 7.125%, 04/01/21 (b)		700,000		710,500
Crosstex Energy LP/Crosstex Energy Finance Corp. 8.875%, 02/15/18 (b)		495,000		543,263
Denbury Resources, Inc. 8.250%, 02/15/20		1,151,000		1,291,997
El Paso Corp. 7.000%, 06/15/17		1,100,000		1,210,717
7.250%, 06/01/18		1,525,000		1,677,343
6.500%, 09/15/20		1,065,000		1,156,584
6.700%, 02/15/27		62,930		60,974

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—(Continued)
Energy XXI Gulf Coast, Inc. 9.250%, 12/15/17		1,255,000	$	1,367,950
7.750%, 06/15/19 (b)		2,450,000		2,511,250
Forest Oil Corp. 8.500%, 02/15/14		370,000		405,150
Hilcorp Energy I L.P./Hilcorp Finance Co. 8.000%, 02/15/20 (144A)		565,000		607,375
7.625%, 04/15/21 (144A)		3,460,000		3,641,650
Laredo Petroleum, Inc. 9.500%, 02/15/19 (144A)		1,195,000		1,272,675
Linn Energy LLC/Linn Energy Finance Corp. 6.500%, 05/15/19 (144A)		250,000		249,375
7.750%, 02/01/21		870,000		909,150
MarkWest Energy Partners L.P./MarkWest Energy Finance Corp. 6.750%, 11/01/20		300,000		315,750
6.250%, 06/15/22		1,420,000		1,491,000
Newfield Exploration Co. 5.750%, 01/30/22 (b)		1,660,000		1,801,100
Niska Gas Storage US LLC/Niska Gas Storage Canada ULC 8.875%, 03/15/18		2,500,000		2,456,250
Oasis Petroleum, Inc. 7.250%, 02/01/19		1,020,000		1,060,800
6.500%, 11/01/21		835,000		832,912
Peabody Energy Corp. 6.250%, 11/15/21 (144A)		8,790,000		9,141,600
Petrohawk Energy Corp. 10.500%, 08/01/14		1,750,000		1,955,625
7.875%, 06/01/15		2,000,000		2,140,000
6.250%, 06/01/19		2,445,000		2,701,725
Petroleum Geo-Services ASA 7.375%, 12/15/18 (144A)		1,050,000		1,076,250
Pioneer Natural Resources Co. 6.650%, 03/15/17		375,000		416,800
6.875%, 05/01/18		1,315,000		1,493,808
7.500%, 01/15/20		560,000		659,591
7.200%, 01/15/28		245,000		281,318
Plains Exploration & Production Co. 10.000%, 03/01/16		460,000		511,750
7.625%, 04/01/20		205,000		222,938
6.625%, 05/01/21		1,065,000		1,123,575
6.750%, 02/01/22		1,960,000		2,062,900
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—(Continued)
Range Resources Corp. 7.250%, 05/01/18		650,000	$	698,750
8.000%, 05/15/19		1,335,000		1,495,200
6.750%, 08/01/20		665,000		741,475
5.750%, 06/01/21		3,095,000		3,365,812
SandRidge Energy, Inc. 7.500%, 03/15/21		2,910,000		2,902,725
SM Energy Co. 6.625%, 02/15/19 (144A)		725,000		757,625
6.500%, 11/15/21 (144A)		1,080,000		1,117,800
Targa Resources Partners L.P./Targa Resources Partners Finance Corp. 6.875%, 02/01/21 (144A)		605,000		615,588
Whiting Petroleum Corp. 6.500%, 10/01/18		315,000		330,750
				81,797,377
Paper & Forest Products—1.6%
Boise Paper Holdings LLC/Boise Co.-Issuer Co. 8.000%, 04/01/20 (b)		1,755,000		1,864,688
Boise Paper Holdings LLC/Boise Finance Co. 9.000%, 11/01/17		1,635,000		1,765,800
Clearwater Paper Corp. 10.625%, 06/15/16		390,000		436,800
7.125%, 11/01/18 (b)		1,025,000		1,071,125
Georgia-Pacific LLC 8.250%, 05/01/16 (144A)		1,885,000		2,094,825
NewPage Corp. 11.375%, 12/31/14 (b) (c)		4,671,000		3,474,056
Verso Paper Holdings LLC 11.500%, 07/01/14 (b)		1,497,000		1,534,425
4.179%, 08/01/14 (e)		90,000		57,150
				12,298,869
Pharmaceuticals—0.7%
Axcan Intermediate Holdings, Inc. 12.750%, 03/01/16		1,520,000		1,611,200
Capsugel FinanceCo SCA 9.875%, 08/01/19 (EUR)		195,000		255,474
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. 6.500%, 07/15/16 (144A) (b)		3,130,000		3,141,737
7.250%, 07/15/22 (144A)		330,000		321,750
				5,330,161

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Professional Services—0.3%
FTI Consulting, Inc. 6.750%, 10/01/20		2,450,000	$	2,541,875
Real Estate Management & Development—0.5%
Ashton Woods USA LLC/Ashton Woods Finance Co. 11.000%, 06/30/15 (144A) (g)		119,600		91,494
Realogy Corp. 11.500%, 04/15/17 (b)		2,310,000		1,813,350
12.000%, 04/15/17		350,000		271,250
7.875%, 02/15/19 (144A) (b)		2,165,000		1,894,375
				4,070,469
Road & Rail—0.4%
Florida East Coast Railway Corp. 8.125%, 02/01/17		1,010,000		1,002,425
Hertz Corp. (The) 6.750%, 04/15/19 (b)		245,000		246,837
7.375%, 01/15/21 (b)		1,635,000		1,669,744
				2,919,006
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—0.2%
Spansion LLC 7.875%, 11/15/17		1,330,000		1,216,950
Specialty Retail—0.7%
Asbury Automotive Group, Inc. 7.625%, 03/15/17		880,000		886,600
8.375%, 11/15/20 (b)		1,005,000		1,035,150
Sally Holdings LLC/Sally Capital, Inc. 6.875%, 11/15/19 (144A) (b)		885,000		929,250
Sonic Automotive, Inc. 9.000%, 03/15/18 (b)		740,000		782,550
Toys “R” Us—Delaware, Inc. 7.375%, 09/01/16 (144A)		750,000		755,625
United Auto Group, Inc. 7.750%, 12/15/16		1,035,000		1,066,050
				5,455,225
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—0.3%
Levi Strauss & Co. 7.750%, 05/15/18 (EUR)		278,000		331,759
PVH Corp. 7.375%, 05/15/20		635,000		692,150
7.750%, 11/15/23		1,510,000		1,699,128
				2,723,037
Trading Companies & Distributors—0.8%
Interline Brands, Inc. 7.000%, 11/15/18		840,000	$	873,600
RSC Equipment Rental, Inc./RSC Holdings III LLC 10.000%, 07/15/17 (144A) (b)		1,795,000		2,100,150
8.250%, 02/01/21		3,135,000		3,189,863
				6,163,613
Wireless Telecommunication Services—2.5%
Cricket Communications, Inc. 7.750%, 05/15/16		1,780,000		1,846,750
Crown Castle International Corp. 7.125%, 11/01/19		580,000		629,300
iPCS, Inc. 2.554%, 05/01/13 (e)		2,571,000		2,397,457
MetroPCS Wireless, Inc. 6.625%, 11/15/20 (b)		3,580,000		3,347,300
SBA Telecommunications, Inc. 8.000%, 08/15/16		900,000		974,250
Sprint Nextel Corp. 9.000%, 11/15/18 (144A)		9,760,000		10,272,400
				19,467,457
Total Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities (Cost $502,273,201)				502,955,303
Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—14.2%
Aerospace & Defense—0.2%
Aguila 3 S.A. 7.875%, 01/31/18 (144A) (b)		1,456,000		1,419,600
Airlines—0.2%
Air Canada 9.250%, 08/01/15 (144A) (b)		1,660,000		1,460,800
Auto Components—0.0%
International Automotive Components Group SL 9.125%, 06/01/18 (144A)		110,000		99,000
Chemicals—0.4%
Kinove German Bondco GmbH 10.000%, 06/15/18 (144A) (EUR)		1,042,000		1,202,951
LyondellBasell Industries N.V. 6.000%, 11/15/21 (144A) (b)		485,000		505,612

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Chemicals—(Continued)
Nova Chemicals Corp. 8.625%, 11/01/19 (b)		1,270,000	$	1,406,525
				3,115,088
Commercial Banks—0.0%
ATF Capital B.V. 9.250%, 02/21/14 (144A)		100,000		89,000
Glitnir Banki HF 6.375%, 09/25/12 (144A) (EUR) (a) (c)		1,835,000		0
				89,000
Construction & Engineering—0.2%
Abengoa S.A. 8.500%, 03/31/16 (EUR)		300,000		371,634
Boart Longyear Management Pty, Ltd. 7.000%, 04/01/21 (144A)		700,000		714,000
Xefin Lux SCA 8.000%, 06/01/18 (144A) (EUR)		700,000		817,204
				1,902,838
Consumer Finance—0.5%
FCE Bank plc 9.375%, 01/17/14 (EUR)		350,000		489,188
4.750%, 01/19/15 (EUR)		2,934,000		3,710,729
				4,199,917
Containers & Packaging—0.8%
Ardagh Packaging Finance plc 7.375%, 10/15/17 (144A) (EUR)		881,000		1,119,934
9.250%, 10/15/20 (144A) (EUR)		483,000		565,437
Cascades, Inc. 7.750%, 12/15/17		700,000		696,500
Crown European Holdings S.A. 7.125%, 08/15/18 (144A) (EUR)		1,660,000		2,180,184
GCL Holdings SCA 9.375%, 04/15/18 (144A) (EUR)		943,000		1,040,831
Greif Luxembourg Finance SCA 7.375%, 07/15/21 (144A)		330,000		410,937
OI European Group B.V. 6.875%, 03/31/17 (EUR)		395,000		514,936
				6,528,759
Diversified Financial Services—0.6%
Beverage Packing Holdings Luxembourg II S.A. 8.000%, 12/15/16 (EUR)		1,750,000		1,929,510
Diversified Financial Services—(Continued)
UPCB Finance II, Ltd. 6.375%, 07/01/20 (144A) (EUR)		2,103,000	$	2,536,953
				4,466,463
Diversified Telecommunication Services—2.5%
Digicel Group, Ltd. 8.875%, 01/15/15 (144A)		2,205,000		2,182,950
9.125%, 01/15/15 (144A) (b)		1,637,665		1,613,100
8.250%, 09/01/17 (144A) (b)		2,140,000		2,172,100
10.500%, 04/15/18 (144A)		1,050,000		1,065,750
Intelsat Jackson Holdings S.A. 11.250%, 06/15/16		1,970,000		2,074,656
Intelsat Luxembourg S.A. 11.500%, 02/04/17 (f)		2,965,000		2,868,637
11.500%, 02/04/17 (144A) (f)		2,100,000		2,031,750
Sunrise Communications Holdings S.A. 8.500%, 12/31/18 (144A) (EUR)		420,000		550,251
Sunrise Communications International S.A. 7.000%, 12/31/17 (144A) (EUR)		490,000		657,850
Virgin Media Secured Finance plc 7.000%, 01/15/18 (GBP)		1,473,000		2,425,682
Ziggo Finance B.V. 6.125%, 11/15/17 (144A) (EUR)		1,810,000		2,371,320
				20,014,046
Electric Utilities—0.7%
Infinis plc 9.125%, 12/15/14 (144A)		740,000		1,161,123
Tokyo Electric Power Co., Inc. (The) 4.500%, 03/24/14 (EUR)		3,550,000		4,010,852
				5,171,975
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—0.1%
Elster Finance BV 6.250%, 04/15/18 (144A) (EUR)		386,000		480,672
Energy Equipment & Services—0.7%
Compagnie Generale de Geophysique-Veritas 7.750%, 05/15/17		2,035,000		2,070,613
Precision Drilling Corp. 6.500%, 12/15/21 (144A)		1,075,000		1,101,875
Transocean, Inc. 6.375%, 12/15/21		2,185,000		2,326,699
				5,499,187

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Food Products—0.1%
Boparan Holdings, Ltd. 9.750%, 04/30/18 (144A) (EUR)		399,000	$	416,638
9.875%, 04/30/18 (144A) (GBP)		505,000		627,634
				1,044,272
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—0.1%
ConvaTec Healthcare E S.A. 7.375%, 12/15/17 (144A) (EUR)		694,000		850,710
Health Care Providers & Services—0.3%
Crown Newco 3 plc 7.000%, 02/15/18 (144A) (GBP)		1,010,000		1,427,868
Ontex IV S.A. 7.500%, 04/15/18 (144A) (EUR)		530,000		604,990
				2,032,858
Media—2.0%
Kabel BW Erste Beteiligungs GmbH/Kabel Baden-Wurttemberg GmbH & Co. KG 7.500%, 03/15/19 (144A) (EUR)		1,740,000		2,279,611
Kabel Deutschland Vertrieb und Service GmbH & Co. KG 6.500%, 06/29/18 (144A) (EUR)		955,000		1,267,030
MPL 2 Acquisition Canco, Inc. 9.875%, 08/15/18 (144A) (b)		715,000		629,200
Musketeer GmbH 9.500%, 03/15/21 (144A) (EUR)		1,029,000		1,334,767
Odeon & UCI Finco plc 9.000%, 08/01/18 (144A) (GBP)		573,000		812,293
Unitymedia GmbH 9.625%, 12/01/19 (EUR)		456,000		610,724
Unitymedia Hessen GmbH & Co. KG/Unitymedia NRW GmbH 8.125%, 12/01/17 (144A) (EUR)		452,000		605,367
UPC Germany GmbH 8.125%, 12/01/17 (144A) (EUR)		2,916,000		3,413,259
9.625%, 12/01/19 (144A) (EUR)		1,505,000		2,015,657
UPC Holding B.V. 9.875%, 04/15/18 (144A) (b)		1,420,000		1,521,175
Ziggo Bond Co. B.V. 8.000%, 05/15/18 (144A) (EUR)		886,000		1,160,767
				15,649,850
Metals & Mining—1.6%
New World Resources NV 7.875%, 05/01/18 (144A) (EUR)		1,345,000		1,629,170
Metals & Mining—(Continued)
Novelis, Inc. 8.375%, 12/15/17		2,030,000	$	2,167,025
8.750%, 12/15/20 (b)		6,795,000		7,321,612
Taseko Mines, Ltd. 7.750%, 04/15/19		1,530,000		1,388,475
				12,506,282
Multiline Retail—0.1%
House of Fraser, Ltd. 8.875%, 08/15/18 (144A) (GBP)		780,000		945,180
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—2.1%
Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp. 8.125%, 12/01/19 (144A)		970,000		1,006,375
MEG Energy Corp. 6.500%, 03/15/21 (144A)		3,840,000		3,945,600
OGX Petroleo e Gas Participacoes S.A. 8.500%, 06/01/18 (144A)		11,065,000		10,954,350
Trafigura Beheer B.V. 6.375%, 04/08/15 (EUR)		490,000		579,982
				16,486,307
Paper & Forest Products—0.1%
Ainsworth Lumber Co., Ltd. 11.000%, 07/29/15 (144A) (f)		92,559		60,626
Sappi Papier Holding GmbH 6.625%, 04/15/21 (144A) (b)		485,000		418,313
				478,939
Pharmaceuticals—0.1%
Capsugel FinanceCo SCA 9.875%, 08/01/19 (144A) (EUR)		500,000		655,061
Road & Rail—0.7%
Hertz Holdings Netherlands B.V. 8.500%, 07/31/15 (144A) (EUR)		4,407,000		5,873,744
Wireless Telecommunication Services—0.1%
Phones4u Finance plc 9.500%, 04/01/18 (144A) (GBP)		965,000		1,199,341
Total Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities (Cost $118,810,198)				112,169,889
Loan Participation—6.5%
Capital Markets—0.1%
Nuveen Investments, Inc. Incremental Term Loan 0.000%, 05/13/17 (h)		980,000		968,563

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Loan Participation—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Commercial Services & Supplies—0.1%
ServiceMaster Co. 2.780%, 07/24/14 (e)		447,825	$	428,652
2.800%, 07/24/14 (e)		44,597		42,687
				471,339
Communications Equipment—0.0%
Avaya, Inc. 3.256%, 10/24/14 (e)		279,268		267,689
Diversified Telecommunication Services—1.2%
Intelsat Jackson Holdings S.A. 5.250%, 04/02/18 (e)		6,691,375		6,656,714
Level 3 Financing, Inc. 5.750%, 08/31/18 (e)		3,000,000		2,965,500
				9,622,214
Electric Utilities—0.1%
Texas Competitive Electric Holdings Co. LLC/ TCEH Finance, Inc. 4.776%, 10/10/17 (e)		1,350,976		858,836
Health Care Providers & Services—0.4%
Community Health Systems, Inc. 2.546%, 07/25/14 (e)		13,117		12,742
2.773%, 07/25/14 (e)		255,833		248,514
Emergency Medical Services Corp. 5.250%, 05/25/18 (e)		378,095		369,115
Harden Healthcare LLC 7.750%, 03/02/15 (a) (e)		1,858,282		1,821,116
8.500%, 03/02/15 (a) (e)		672,667		659,214
				3,110,701
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—0.6%
Centerplate Inc., Term Loan B 0.000%, 09/16/16 (h)		2,970,000		2,966,287
Enterprise Inns 6.500%, 12/06/18 (GBP) (e)		965,000		1,005,947
Harrahs Operating Co., Inc. 0.000%, 01/28/15 (h)		735,014		640,844
				4,613,078
Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders—1.6%
Dynegy Holdings, Inc. 9.250%, 08/05/16 (e)		12,169,500		12,333,812
Internet Software & Services—0.0%
Travelport LLC 6.004%, 09/28/12 (e)		62,833		32,988
Internet Software & Services—(Continued)
13.872%, 12/01/16 (e)		190,387	$	38,077
				71,065
Media—0.8%
Clear Channel Communications, Inc. 3.946%, 01/28/16 (e)		1,195,000		878,522
HEMA Holding B.V. 9.705%, 07/05/17 (EUR) (e)		1,673,796		1,791,211
HMH Publishing Co. Ltd. 6.435%, 12/12/14 (e)		1,186,618		684,679
Newsday, Inc. 10.500%, 08/01/13		3,140,000		3,249,900
				6,604,312
Paper & Forest Products—0.5%
Ainsworth Lumber Co., Ltd. 5.313%, 06/26/14 (e)		1,000,000		843,750
NewPage Corp. 8.000%, 03/08/13 (e)		1,350,000		1,361,813
Verso Paper Holdings LLC 6.682%, 02/01/13 (e)		2,884,422		1,514,321
				3,719,884
Real Estate Management & Development—0.1%
Realogy Corp. 4.436%, 10/10/16 (e)		143,684		128,744
4.691%, 10/10/16 (e)		765,770		686,145
				814,889
Wireless Telecommunication Services—1.0%
Hawaiian Telcom
9.000%, 11/01/15 (e)		797,556		807,366
Vodafone Americas Finance, Inc.
6.875%, 08/11/15 (e)		4,013,723		4,023,757
6.250%, 07/11/16 (e)		3,000,000		3,007,500
				7,838,623
Total Loan Participation (Cost $51,085,103)				51,295,005
Common Stock—3.6%
Capital Markets—0.1%
E*Trade Financial Corp.* (b)		76,199		606,544
Chemicals—0.0%
Zemex Minerals Group, Inc.*		87		0

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Communications Equipment—0.1%
Loral Space & Communications, Inc.* (b)		6,666	$	432,490
Diversified Telecommunication Services—0.0%
Viatel Holding Bermuda, Ltd.*		4		1
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—1.7%
Buffets Restaurants Holdings, Inc.* (a)		114		1
Delphi Holdings Corp.* (a)		206,710		4,304,113
Delphi Holdings Corp.* (a)		482,323		9,523,473
				13,827,587
Machinery—0.0%
Stanley-Martin Communities LLC* (a)		450		385,785
Media—1.4%
Belo Corp.—Class A (b)		128,290		808,227
Cebridge Connections Holdings* (a)		7,460		37,598
Charter Communications, Inc.-Class A* (b)		162,524		9,254,117
Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc.— Class A* (b)		31,744		398,387
Cumulus Media, Inc.* (a)		71,859		225,278
Education Media & Publishing Group, Ltd. (144A)*		123,307		123,307
				10,846,914
Metals & Mining—0.1%
African Minerals, Ltd.*		159,753		1,092,011
Paper & Forest Products—0.0%
Ainsworth Lumber Co., Ltd. (144A)*		10,657		0
Ainsworth Lumber Co., Ltd.*		9,394		9,053
				9,053
Professional Services—0.0%
Pendrell Corp.*		9,800		25,088
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—0.2%
Spansion, Inc.—Class A* (b)		146,805		1,215,545
Software—0.0%
Bankruptcy Management Solution, Inc. (144A)*		796		207
Total Common Stocks (Cost $26,283,971)				28,441,225
Preferred Stocks—1.9%
Security Description	Shares/Par Amount($)†		Value
Auto Components—0.6%
Dana Holding Corp., Series B (144A)		44,700	$	4,794,075
Consumer Finance—0.8%
Ally Financial, Inc., Series G (144A)		9,665		6,928,900
Diversified Financial Services—0.4%
GMAC Capital Trust I, Series 2		158,940		3,093,211
Road & Rail—0.0%
Marsico Parent Superholdco LLC (144A)* (a)		25		0
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance—0.1%
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., Series Z*		201,964		268,612
Federal National Mortgage Association, Series 0*		70,000		151,900
				420,512
Transportation—0.0%
Travelport Holdings, Ltd.*		26,456		19,842
Total Preferred Stocks (Cost $19,069,555)				15,256,540
Convertible Bonds—1.2%
Capital Markets—0.0%
E*Trade Financial Corp. Series A
0.000%, 08/31/19 (144A) (d)		76,000		59,660
0.000%, 08/31/19 (144A) (b) (d)		11,000		8,635
				68,295
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—0.1%
MGM Resorts International
4.250%, 04/15/15		565,000		537,456
Life Sciences Tools & Services—0.1%
Illumina, Inc. 0.250%, 03/15/16 (144A)		865,000		697,406
Machinery—0.4%
Navistar International Corp. 3.000%, 10/15/14		3,120,000		3,377,400

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Convertible Bonds—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares/Par Amount($)†		Value
Metals & Mining—0.5%
Goldcorp, Inc. 2.000%, 08/01/14 (b)		1,865,000	$	2,291,619
Newmont Mining Corp. Series A 1.250%, 07/15/14		1,400,000		1,953,000
				4,244,619
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—0.1%
Chesapeake Energy Corp. 2.250%, 12/15/38		890,000		738,700
Total Convertible Bonds (Cost $10,304,863)				9,663,876
Warrants — 0.0%
Containers & Packaging—0.0%
Smurfit Kappa Group plc, expires 10/01/13* (144A) (a)		100		3,124
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—0.0%
Buffets Restaurants Holdings, Inc., expires 04/28/14*		50		0
HMH Holdings* (144A)		26,513		0
				0
Media—0.0%
Charter Communications, Inc., expires 11/30/14* (b)		281		4,890
Software—0.0%
Bankruptcy Management Solution, Inc., expires 12/30/11* (144A)		531		0
Total Warrants (Cost $992)				8,014
Short-Term Investments—20.3%
Mutual Funds—13.5%
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (i)		106,474,219		106,474,219
Repurchase Agreement—6.8%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $53,242,059 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $54,375,000, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. at 0.625% due 12/23/13 with a value of $54,307,031.	$	53,242,000	$	53,242,000
Total Short-Term Investment (Cost $159,716,219)				159,716,219
Total Investments—111.5% (Cost $887,544,102#)				879,506,071
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(11.5)%				(90,664,580	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	788,841,491

† Par amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $891,663,676. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $25,571,219 and $(37,728,824), respectively, resulting in net unrealized depreciation of $(12,157,605) for federal income tax purposes.

(a) Security was valued in good faith under procedures approved by the Board of Trustees.

(b) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities loaned was $100,932,644 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $106,474,219. The cash collateral is invested in a money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian.

(c) Security is in default and/or issuer is in bankruptcy.

(d) Zero coupon bond—Interest rate represents current yield to maturity.

(e) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2011. Maturity date shown for callable securities reflects the earliest possible call date.

(f) Payment-in-kind security for which part of the income earned may be paid as additional principal.

(g) Security is a “step-up” bond where coupon increases or steps up at a predetermined date. Rates shown are current coupon and next coupon rate when security steps up.

(h) This Senior Loan will settle after December 31, 2011, at which time the interest rate will be determined.

(i) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities lending transactions.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

(144A)— Securities exempt from registration under Rule 144A of the Securities Act of 1933. These securities may be resold in transactions exempt from registration, normally to qualified institutional buyers. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of 144A securities was $237,065,227, which is 30.0% of net assets.

(EUR)— Euro

(GBP)— British Pound

(MTN)— Medium Term Note

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities
Aerospace & Defense	$	—	$	11,714,244	$	4,251,570	$	15,965,814
Airlines		—		6,453,084		—		6,453,084
Auto Components		—		1,287,031		—		1,287,031
Automobiles		—		3,482,450		—		3,482,450
Beverages		—		629,300		—		629,300
Biotechnology		—		601,312		—		601,312
Building Products		—		2,999,000		—		2,999,000
Capital Markets		—		7,619,451		—		7,619,451
Chemicals		—		20,779,920		—		20,779,920
Commercial Banks		—		13,885,849		—		13,885,849
Commercial Services & Supplies		—		10,627,653		7		10,627,660
Communications Equipment		—		696,850		—		696,850
Consumer Finance		—		20,795,655		—		20,795,655
Containers & Packaging		—		14,478,657		—		14,478,657
Diversified Consumer Services		—		1,952,250		—		1,952,250
Diversified Financial Services		—		19,916,523		—		19,916,523
Diversified Telecommunication Services		—		24,832,908		—		24,832,908
Electric Utilities		—		11,814,125		—		11,814,125
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components		—		1,449,600		—		1,449,600
Energy Equipment & Services		—		10,872,512		—		10,872,512
Food Products		—		1,209,831		—		1,209,831
Gas Utilities		—		6,477,700		—		6,477,700
Health Care Equipment & Supplies		—		4,445,788		—		4,445,788
Health Care Providers & Services		—		43,024,388		—		43,024,388
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure		—		11,962,503		330,539		12,293,042
Household Durables		—		10,928,806		—		10,928,806
Household Products		—		1,884,356		—		1,884,356
Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders		—		16,173,512		—		16,173,512
Insurance		—		2,348,667		—		2,348,667
Internet Software & Services		—		1,870,134		—		1,870,134
IT Services		—		11,070,050		—		11,070,050
Machinery		—		5,072,539		—		5,072,539

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY—(Continued)

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Media	$	—	$	42,365,520	$	—	$	42,365,520
Metals & Mining		—		1,308,200		—		1,308,200
Multiline Retail		—		7,358,780		—		7,358,780
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels		—		81,797,377		—		81,797,377
Paper & Forest Products		—		12,298,869		—		12,298,869
Pharmaceuticals		—		5,330,161		—		5,330,161
Professional Services		—		2,541,875		—		2,541,875
Real Estate Management & Development		—		4,070,469		—		4,070,469
Road & Rail		—		2,919,006		—		2,919,006
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment		—		1,216,950		—		1,216,950
Specialty Retail		—		5,455,225		—		5,455,225
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods		—		2,723,037		—		2,723,037
Trading Companies & Distributors		—		6,163,613		—		6,163,613
Wireless Telecommunication Services		—		19,467,457		—		19,467,457
Total Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities		—		498,373,187		4,582,116		502,955,303
Total Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities*		—		112,169,889		—		112,169,889
Loan Participation
Capital Markets		—		968,563		—		968,563
Commercial Services & Supplies		—		471,339		—		471,339
Communications Equipment		—		267,689		—		267,689
Diversified Telecommunication Services		—		9,622,214		—		9,622,214
Electric Utilities		—		858,836		—		858,836
Health Care Providers & Services		—		630,371		2,480,330		3,110,701
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure		—		4,613,078		—		4,613,078
Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders		—		12,333,812		—		12,333,812
Internet Software & Services		—		71,065		—		71,065
Media		—		6,604,312		—		6,604,312
Paper & Forest Products		—		3,719,884		—		3,719,884
Real Estate Management & Development		—		814,889		—		814,889
Wireless Telecommunication Services		—		7,838,623		—		7,838,623
Total Loan Participation		—		48,814,675		2,480,330		51,295,005
Common Stocks
Capital Markets		606,544		—		—		606,544
Chemicals		—		—		—		—
Communications Equipment		432,490		—		—		432,490
Diversified Telecommunication Services		1		—		—		1
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure		—		13,827,586		1		13,827,587
Machinery		—		—		385,785		385,785
Media		10,460,731		123,307		262,876		10,846,914
Metals & Mining		1,092,011		—		—		1,092,011
Paper & Forest Products		9,053		—		—		9,053
Professional Services		25,088		—		—		25,088
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment		1,215,545		—		—		1,215,545
Software		—		207		—		207
Total Common Stocks		13,841,463		13,951,100		648,662		28,441,225
Preferred Stocks
Auto Components		4,794,075		—		—		4,794,075
Consumer Finance		6,928,900		—		—		6,928,900
Diversified Financial Services		—		3,093,211		—		3,093,211
Road & Rail		—		—		—		—

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY—(Continued)

Description	Level 1			Level 2			Level 3		Total
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance	$	420,512		$	—		$	—	$	420,512
Transportation		—			19,842			—		19,842
Total Preferred Stocks		12,143,487			3,113,053			—		15,256,540
Total Convertible Bonds*		—			9,663,876			—		9,663,876
Warrants
Containers & Packaging		—			—			3,124		3,124
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure		—			—			—		—
Media		4,890			—			—		4,890
Software		—			—			—		—
Total Warrants		4,890			—			3,124		8,014
Short-Term Investments
Mutual Funds		106,474,219			—			—		106,474,219
Repurchase Agreement		—			53,242,000			—		53,242,000
Total Short-Term Investments		106,474,219			53,242,000			—		159,716,219
Total Investments	$	132,464,059		$	739,327,780		$	7,714,232	$	879,506,071
Forward Contracts**
Forward Foreign Currency Contracts (Unrealized Appreciation)	$	—		$	3,433,897		$	—	$	3,433,897
Forward Foreign Currency Contracts (Unrealized Depreciation)		—			(174,305	)		—		(174,305	)
Total Forward Contracts	$	—		$	3,259,592		$	—	$	3,259,592
Futures Contracts**
Futures Contracts (Unrealized Depreciation)		(74,059	)		—			—		(74,059	)
Total Forward Contracts	$	(74,059	)	$	—		$	—	$	(74,059	)
Swap Contracts**
Swap Contracts at Value (Assets)	$	—		$	310,839		$	—	$	310,839
Swap Contracts at Value (Liabilities)		—			(1,139,839	)		—		(1,139,839	)
Total Swap Contracts	$	—		$	(829,000	)	$	—	$	(829,000	)

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

** Derivative instruments such as forwards and futures contracts are valued on the unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the instrument. Swap contracts are presented at value.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Following is a reconciliation of Level 3 assets for which significant unobservable inputs were used to determine fair value:

Investments in Securities	Balance as of December 31, 2010		Accrued Discounts/ (Premiums)		Realized Gain/(Loss)			Change in Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)			Purchases		Sales			Transfers in to Level 3		Transfers out of Level 3			Balance as of December 31, 2011		Change in Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation) for Investments Held at December 31, 2011
Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities
Aerospace & Defense	$	4,680,229	$	—	$	—		$	98,241		$	—	$	(526,900	)	$	—	$	—		$	4,251,570	$	98,241
Commercial Banks		—		504,906		—			(1,059,994	)		—		—			555,088		—			0		—
Commercial Services & Supplies		—		—		—			(72	)		—		—			79		—			7		(73	)
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure		—		—		1,876			53,674			—		(103,761	)		378,750		—			330,539		3,241
Media		2,440		7,569		36,549			75,442			—		(122,000	)		—		—			—		—
Loan Participation
Finance		1,635,701		—		(2,959,466	)		1,573,489			42,028		(291,752	)		—		—			—		—
Health Care-Providers & Services		2,753,978		—		5,518			66			2,481,270		(2,760,502	)		—		—			2,480,330		—
Common Stocks
Building Products		577,558		—		(246,724	)		343,918			—		(674,752	)		—		—			—		—
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure		1		—		—			—			—		—			—		—			1		—
Machinery		243,900		—		—			141,885			—		—			—		—			385,785		141,885
Media		683,675		—		—			195,736			—		—			—		(616,535	)		262,876		195,736
Warrants
Containers & Packaging		4,569		—		—			(1,445	)		—		—			—		—			3,124		(1,445	)
Total	$	10,582,051	$	512,475	$	(3,162,247	)	$	1,420,940		$	2,523,298	$	(4,479,667	)	$	933,917	$	(616,535	)	$	7,714,232	$	437,585

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities in the amount of $933,917 were transferred into Level 3 due to a decline in market activity for significant observables which resulted in a lack of available market inputs to determine price.

Common Stock in the amount of $616,535 were transferred out of Level 3 due to the initiation of a vendor or broker providing prices, which are observable and available.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)(b)	$	826,264,071
Repurchase Agreement		53,242,000
Cash		148,825
Cash denominated in foreign currencies (c)		451,285
Cash collateral (e)		1,217,000
Receivable for investments sold		1,108,811
Receivable for shares sold		321,899
Dividends receivable		44,700
Interest receivable		12,704,246
Net variation margin on financial futures contracts		15,840
Swap interest receivable		30,313
Swaps at market value (d)		310,839
Unrealized appreciation on forward currency exchange contracts		3,433,897
Miscellaneous assets		66,225
Total assets		899,359,951
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		1,479,259
Shares redeemed		700,519
Unrealized depreciation on forward currency exchange contracts		174,305
Swaps at market value (e)		1,139,839
Collateral for securities loaned		106,474,219
Swap interest		942
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		388,043
Distribution and service fees - Class B		53,006
Administration fees		3,404
Custodian and accounting fees		15,694
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		64,163
Total liabilities		110,518,460
Net Assets	$	788,841,491
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	729,295,586
Accumulated net realized gain		8,228,834
Unrealized depreciation on investments, futures contracts, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		(4,784,497	)
Undistributed net investment income		56,101,568
Net Assets	$	788,841,491
Net Assets
Class A	$	518,421,606
Class B		270,419,885
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		62,033,192
Class B		32,605,688
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	8.36
Class B		8.29

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreement, was $834,302,102.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $100,932,644.

(c) Identified cost of cash denominated in foreign currencies was $472,024.

(d) Swap premium paid was $317,843.

(e) Swap premium received was $1,339,715.

(f) Includes collateral of $900,000 for swaps and $317,000 for futures.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends	$	1,465,500
Interest (a)		60,689,382
Total investment income		62,154,882
Expenses
Management fees		4,938,547
Administration fees		43,148
Custodian and accounting fees		182,793
Distribution and service fees - Class B		638,026
Audit and tax services		55,173
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Shareholder reporting		42,637
Insurance		5,032
Miscellaneous		10,157
Total expenses		5,984,223
Net investment income		56,170,659
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments, Futures Contracts, Swaps Contracts and Foreign Currency Transactions
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments		23,075,719
Futures contracts		(585,169	)
Swap contracts		(535,355	)
Foreign currency transactions		96,504
Net realized gain on investments, futures contracts, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		22,051,699
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on:
Investments		(51,718,915	)
Futures contracts		225,011
Swap contracts		192,872
Foreign currency transactions		2,042,162
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments, futures contracts, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		(49,258,870	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments, futures contracts, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		(27,207,171	)
Net Increase in Net Assets from Operations	$	28,963,488

(a) Includes net income on securities loaned of $268,150.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	56,170,659		$	59,167,472
Net realized gain on investments, futures contracts, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		22,051,699			37,999,882
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments, futures contracts, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		(49,258,870	)		18,818,212
Net increase in net assets resulting from operations		28,963,488			115,985,566
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(46,335,390	)		(39,934,624	)
Class B		(17,000,919	)		(8,375,231	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(63,336,309	)		(48,309,855	)
Net increase (decrease) in net assets from capital share transactions		(93,855,348	)		176,878,974
Net Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets		(128,228,169	)		244,554,685
Net assets at beginning of period		917,069,660			672,514,975
Net assets at end of period	$	788,841,491		$	917,069,660
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	56,101,568		$	61,301,819

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		13,611,325		$	115,586,227			13,787,820		$	113,633,359
Reinvestments		5,432,050			46,335,390			4,948,529			39,934,624
Redemptions		(35,100,742	)		(300,001,067	)		(10,915,369	)		(89,229,314	)
Net increase (decrease)		(16,057,367	)	$	(138,079,450	)		7,820,980		$	64,338,669
Class B
Sales		21,429,200		$	180,506,081			29,915,825		$	244,002,581
Reinvestments		2,004,825			17,000,919			1,041,695			8,375,231
Redemptions		(18,372,853	)		(153,282,898	)		(17,081,151	)		(139,837,507	)
Net increase		5,061,172		$	44,224,102			13,876,369		$	112,540,305
Increase (decrease) derived from capital shares transactions				$	(93,855,348	)				$	176,878,974

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	8.70		$	8.02		$	5.80		$	8.24		$	8.92
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.59			0.63			0.77			0.61			0.60
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.35	)		0.62			1.85			(2.48	)		(0.34	)
Total from investment operations		0.24			1.25			2.62			(1.87	)		0.26
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.58	)		(0.57	)		(0.40	)		(0.57	)		(0.94	)
Total distributions		(0.58	)		(0.57	)		(0.40	)		(0.57	)		(0.94	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	8.36		$	8.70		$	8.02		$	5.80		$	8.24
Total Return (%)		2.50			16.10			47.20			(24.20	)		2.70
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.65			0.65			0.67			0.67			0.73	(b)
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)		0.65			0.65			0.67			0.67			0.72
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		6.91			7.60			11.24			8.40			7.21
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		98.7			98.6			91.7			57.8			60.2
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	518.4		$	679.1		$	563.4		$	295.7		$	404.1

	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008(d)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	8.64		$	7.98		$	5.78		$	7.66
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.56			0.60			0.77			0.41
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.34	)		0.62			1.83			(2.29	)
Total from investment operations		0.22			1.22			2.60			(1.88	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.57	)		(0.56	)		(0.40	)		0.00
Total distributions		(0.57	)		(0.56	)		(0.40	)		0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	8.29		$	8.64		$	7.98		$	5.78
Total Return (%)		2.34			15.77			46.65			(24.54	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.90			0.90			0.92			0.94	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)		0.90			0.90			0.92			0.94	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		6.66			7.29			10.88			8.70	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		98.7			98.6			91.7			57.8
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	270.4		$	238.0		$	109.1		$	13.2

* Annualized.

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Excludes effect of deferred expense reimbursement.

(c) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

(d) Commencement of operations was 4/28/2008.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

25

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is BlackRock High Yield Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A and B Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

26

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Swap contracts are marked-to-market daily based on quotations and prices supplied by market makers, broker-dealers and pricing services. Such quotations and prices are derived utilizing significant observable data, including the underlying investments. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to futures transactions, foreign currency transactions, forward contracts, swap transactions, paydown adjustments, defaulted bonds, contingent payment debt instrument, ASC-860 (Lehman Brothers counterparty gain/loss) adjustment, premium amortization adjustments, partnerships, deferred trustees’ compensation, capital loss carryforwards and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Foreign Currency Translation - The books and records of the Portfolio are maintained in U.S. dollars. The values of securities, currencies and other assets and liabilities denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars are translated into U.S. dollars based upon foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period. Purchases and sales of investment securities, income and expenses are translated on the respective dates of

27

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

such transactions. Since the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, it is not practical to isolate that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates from that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities. Such fluctuations are included in the net realized and unrealized gain or loss on investments.

Net realized foreign exchange gains or losses arise from activity in forward foreign currency exchange contracts, sales of foreign currency, currency gains or losses realized between the trade and settlement dates on securities transactions, and the difference between the amounts of dividends, interest, and foreign withholding taxes recorded by the Portfolio and the U.S. dollar equivalent of the amounts actually received or paid by the Portfolio. Gains and losses attributable to foreign currency exchange rates on sales of securities are recorded as Net realized gains and losses on investments. Net unrealized foreign exchange gains and losses arise from changes in the value of assets and liabilities, other than investment securities, resulting from changes in foreign exchange rates.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

Securities Lending - The Portfolio may lend its portfolio securities to certain qualified brokers who borrow securities in order to complete certain securities transactions. By lending its portfolio securities, the Portfolio attempts to increase its net investment income through the receipt of income on the loaned securities. Any gain or loss in the market price of the loaned securities that might occur and any interest earned or dividends declared during the term of the loan would accrue to the account of the Portfolio.

The Trust has entered into a securities lending arrangement with the custodian, State Street Bank and Trust Company (the “custodian”). Under this arrangement, the custodian is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral at least equal to 102% of the market value of the loaned securities (105% for foreign equity securities), at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities must be maintained for the duration of the loan. Cash collateral is generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The Navigator Portfolio is a registered money market fund which invests in a variety of high quality U.S. dollar-denominated instruments. If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower shall be required to deliver, by the close of business on the following business day, an additional amount of collateral so that the total amount of posted collateral equals at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of net income (income after the deduction of expenses and fees of the Navigator Portfolio) on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the custodian and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by U.S. Treasuries, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the custodian. The risks associated with lending portfolio securities include, but are not limited to, possible delays in receiving additional collateral or in the recovery of the loaned securities, possible loss of rights in the collateral should the borrower fail financially, as well as risk of loss in the value of the collateral or the value of the investments made with the collateral. Net interest income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2011 is disclosed in the footnotes to the Statement of Operations. Any outstanding loans by the Portfolio at December 31, 2011 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments.

Loan Participations - The Portfolio may invest in loans arranged through private negotiation between one or more financial institutions. The Portfolio’s investment in any such loan may be in the form of a participation in or an assignment of the loan. In connection with purchasing participations or an assignment, the Portfolio generally will have no right to enforce compliance by the borrower with the terms of the loan agreement relating to the loan, nor any rights of set-off against the borrower and the Portfolio may not benefit directly from any collateral supporting the loan in which it has purchased the participation or assignment.

High Yield Debt Securities - The Portfolio may invest in high yield debt securities, or “junk bonds,” which are securities that are rated below “investment grade” or, if not rated, are of equivalent quality. A portfolio with high yield debt securities generally will be exposed to greater market risk and credit risk than a portfolio that invests only in investment grade debt securities because issuers of high yield debt securities are less secure financially, are more likely to default on their obligations, and their securities are more sensitive to interest rate changes and downturns in the economy. In addition, the secondary market for lower-rated debt securities may not be as liquid as that for more highly rated debt securities. As a result, the Portfolio’s Subadviser may find it more difficult to value lower-rated debt securities or sell them and may have to sell them at prices significantly lower than the values assigned to them by the Portfolio.

28

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with BlackRock Financial Management, Inc. (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by  the Adviser for the year ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$4,938,547		0.60	%	ALL

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Distribution Agreement and Plan - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A and Class B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B distribution plan provides that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B Shares. However, under the Class B distribution agreement, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B distribution plan are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B distribution plan and distribution agreement, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$—	$	778,284,870	$	—	$	921,605,922

29

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - The Portfolio may enter into forward foreign currency exchange contracts to hedge its portfolio holdings against the risk of future movements in certain foreign currency exchange rates. When entering into these contracts, the Portfolio agrees to receive or deliver a fixed quantity of foreign currency for an agreed-upon price on an agreed upon future date. These contracts are valued daily and the Portfolio’s net equity therein, representing unrealized gain or loss on the contracts as measured by the difference between the forward foreign exchange rates at the dates of entry into the contracts and the forward foreign exchange rates at the value date, is included in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. When a contract is closed, the Portfolio recognizes a realized gain or loss equal to the difference between the value of the contract at the time it was opened and the value at the time it was closed.

Realized and unrealized gains and losses on forward foreign currency exchange contracts are included in the Statement of Operations. These contracts involve market and/or credit risk in excess of the amount recognized in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

The use of forward foreign currency exchange contracts does not eliminate fluctuations in the underlying prices of the securities of the Portfolio, but it does establish a rate of exchange that can be achieved in the future. Although forward foreign currency exchange contracts may limit the risk of loss due to a decline in the value of the currency holdings, they also limit any potential gain that might result should the value of the currency increase. In addition, the Portfolio could be exposed to risks if the counterparties to the contracts are unable to meet the terms of the contracts. The Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit risk, as opposed to investment and other types of risk, in respect of foreign currency forward contracts is typically the value of the currency the Portfolio is due from its counterparty at settlement plus the value of the currency paid, if any, to the Portfolio’s counterparty.

Futures Contracts - The Portfolio may buy and sell futures contracts (on recognized exchanges) as a hedge, to maintain investment exposure to a target asset class or to enhance return. The Portfolio may be subject to fluctuations in equity prices, interest rates, commodity prices and foreign currency exchange rates in the normal course of pursuing its investment objective. Futures contracts are standardized agreements to buy or sell a security, or deliver a final cash settlement price in connection with an index, interest rate, currency, or other asset. The Portfolio must deposit an amount (“initial margin”) equal to a certain percentage of the face value of the futures contract. The initial margin may be in the form of cash or securities which is returned when the Portfolio’s obligations under the contract have been satisfied. If cash is deposited as the initial margin, it is shown as “restricted cash” on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Futures contracts are marked-to-market daily and subsequent payments (“variation margin”) are made or received by the Portfolio depending on the daily fluctuations in the value of the futures contracts. These amounts are reflected as receivables or payables on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Risks of entering into futures contracts (and related options) include the possibility that the market for these instruments may be illiquid and that a change in the value of the contract or option may not correlate perfectly with changes in the value of the underlying instrument. Futures contracts are exchange traded and the exchange’s clearinghouse, as counterparty to all exchange traded futures, guarantees the futures contracts against default.

Swap Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into swap contracts. Swap contracts are derivatives agreements to exchange the return generated by one instrument for the return generated by another instrument. The payment streams are calculated by reference to a specified index and agreed upon notional amount. The term “specified index” includes, but is not limited to, currencies, fixed interest rates, prices and total return on interest rate indices, fixed income indices, stock indices and commodity indices (as well as amounts derived from arithmetic operations on these indices). A Portfolio will usually enter into swaps on a net basis, i.e., the two payment streams are netted out in a cash settlement on the payment date or dates specified in the instrument, with the Portfolio receiving or paying, as the case may be, only the net amount of the two payments. The Portfolio’s obligations under a swap agreement will be accrued daily (offset against any amounts owing to the Portfolio) and any accrued but unpaid net amounts owed to a swap counterparty will be covered by designating the segregation, either on its records or with the Trust’s custodian, of cash or other liquid assets, to avoid any potential leveraging of the Portfolio. The Portfolio may enter into swap transactions with counterparties that are approved by the investment adviser in accordance with guidelines established by the Board. These guidelines provide for a minimum credit rating for each counterparty and various credit enhancement techniques (for example, collateralization of amounts due from counterparties) to limit exposure to counterparties that have lower credit ratings.

An index swap is an agreement to swap cash flows on a notional amount based on changes in the values of the reference indices.

Currency Swaps: A currency swap is an agreement to exchange cash flows on a notional amount of two or more currencies based on the relative value differential among them. Such swaps may involve initial and final exchanges that correspond to the agreed upon notional amount. Currency swaps usually involve the delivery of the entire principal value of one designated currency in exchange for the other designated currency. Therefore, the entire principal value of a currency swap is subject to the risk that the other party to the swap will default on its contractual delivery obligations.

If there is a default by the counterparty, the Portfolio may have contractual remedies pursuant to the agreements related to the transaction.

Credit Default Swaps: The Portfolio is subject to credit risk in the normal course of pursuing its investment objectives. The Portfolio may enter into credit default swaps to manage its exposure to the market or certain sectors of the market, to reduce its risk exposure to defaults of corporate and sovereign issuers, or to create exposure to corporate or sovereign issuers to which it is not otherwise exposed. As the seller in a credit default swap contract, the Portfolio would be required to pay the par (or other agreed upon) value of a referenced debt obligation or index to the counterparty in

30

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments - continued

the event of a default by a third party, such as a U.S. or foreign corporate issuer, on the debt obligation. In return, the Portfolio would receive from the counterparty an upfront or periodic stream of payments over the term of the contract provided that no event of default has occurred. If no default occurs, the Portfolio would keep the stream of payments and would have no payment obligations. An upfront payment received by the Portfolio is recorded as a liability on the books. An upfront payment made by the Portfolio is recorded as an asset on the books. As the seller, the Portfolio would be subject to investment exposure on the notional amount of the swap. The Portfolio may also purchase credit default swap contracts in order to hedge against the risk of default of debt securities held in its portfolio. This would involve the risk that the investment may expire worthless and would only generate income in the event of an actual default by the issuer of the underlying obligation (as opposed to a credit downgrade or other indication of financial instability). It would also involve credit risk—the seller may fail to satisfy its payment obligations to the Portfolio in the event of a default. The Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit risk, as opposed to investment and other types of risk, in respect of credit default swaps, either as the protection seller or as the protection buyer, is the unrealized appreciation of the contract plus, when the Portfolio is the protection buyer, any premiums paid. This risk is mitigated by collateral posted by the counterparty.

Implied credit spreads, represented in absolute terms, utilized in determining the market value of credit default swap agreements on corporate issues or sovereign issues of an emerging country as of period end are disclosed in Note 8 to the Notes to Financials Statements and serve as an indicator of the status of the payment/performance risk and represent the likelihood or risk of default for the credit derivative. The implied credit spread of a particular referenced entity or index also reflects the cost of buying/selling protection and may include upfront payments required to be made to enter into the agreement. For credit default swap agreements on asset-backed securities and credit indices, the quoted market prices and resulting values serve as the indicator of the current status of the payment/performance risk. Wider credit spreads represent a deterioration of the referenced entity’s credit soundness and a greater likelihood or risk of default or other credit event occurring as defined under the terms of the agreement.

The maximum potential amount of future payments (undiscounted) that a Portfolio as a seller of protection could be required to make under a credit default swap agreement would be an amount equal to the notional amount of the agreement. Notional amounts of all credit default swap agreements outstanding as of December 31, 2011 for which a Portfolio is the seller of protection are disclosed in Note 8 to the Notes to Financials Statements. These potential amounts would be partially offset by any recovery values of the respective referenced obligations, upfront payments received upon entering into the agreement, or net amounts received from the settlement of buy protection credit default swap agreements entered into by a Portfolio for the same referenced entity or entities.

Swap agreements are marked to market daily. The change in value, if any, is recorded as unrealized gain or loss in the Statement of Operations. A liquidation payment received or made at the termination of the swap is recorded as realized gain or loss in the Statement of Operations. Net periodic payments are included as part of realized gain (loss) on the Statement of Operations.

The swaps in which the Portfolio may engage may include instruments under which one party pays a single or periodic fixed amount(s) (or premium), and the other party pays periodic amounts based on the movement of a specified index. Swaps do not involve the delivery of securities, other underlying assets, or principal. The Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit risk, as opposed to investment and other types of risk, in respect of swaps is typically the discounted net value of the cash flows to be received from the counterparty over the contract’s remaining life to the extent that such amount is positive, plus the cost of entering into a similar transaction with another counterparty, if possible.

The use of swaps is a highly specialized activity that involves investment techniques and risks different from those associated with ordinary portfolio securities transactions. If the Adviser or Subadviser is incorrect in its forecasts of market values, interest rates, and currency exchange rates, the investment performance of the Portfolio would be less favorable than it would have been if this investment technique were not used.

At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had the following derivatives, categorized by risk exposure:

	Asset Derivatives			Liability Derivatives
Risk Exposure	Statement of Assets and Liabilities Location	Fair Value		Statement of Assets and Liabilities Location	Fair Value
Credit	Swaps at market value	$	310,839	Swaps at market value	$	1,139,839
Equity	Unrealized appreciation on futures contracts*		—	Unrealized depreciation on futures contracts*		74,059
Currency	Unrealized appreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts		3,433,897	Unrealized depreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts		174,305
Total		$	3,744,736		$	1,388,203

* Includes cumulative appreciation/depreciation of futures contracts as reported in the notes to financial statements. Only the current day’s variation margin is reported within the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

31

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments - continued

Transactions in derivative instruments during the year ended December 31, 2011, were as follows:

Statement of Operations Location - Net Realized Gain (Loss)	Credit			Equity			Currency		Total
Foreign currency transactions	$	—		$	—		$	141,031	$	141,031
Future contracts		—			(585,169	)		—		(585,169	)
Swap contracts		(535,355	)		—			—		(535,355	)
	$	(535,355	)	$	(585,169	)	$	141,031	$	(979,493	)
Statement of Operations Location - Net Change in Unrealized Gain
Foreign currency transactions	$	—		$	—		$	2,175,406	$	2,175,406
Future contracts		—			225,011			—		225,011
Swap contracts		192,872			—			—		192,872
	$	192,872		$	225,011		$	2,175,406	$	2,593,289

For the year ended December 31, 2011, the average amount or number per contract outstanding for each derivative type was as follows:

Derivative Description	Average Notional or Face Amount(a)
Foreign currency transactions	$	74,728,845
Futures contracts		(24,579	)
Swap contracts		12,388,125

(a) Averages are based on activity levels during 2011.

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts

Open forward foreign currency exchange contracts at December 31, 2011 were as follows

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts to buy:

Settlement Date	Counterparty	Contracts to Buy			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Net Unrealized Depreciation
1/25/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		1,500,000	EUR	$	1,945,944	$	2,027,449	$	(81,505	)
1/25/2012	Citibank N.A.		2,118,000	EUR		2,747,673		2,840,473		(92,800	)
Net Unrealized Depreciation									$	(174,305	)

32

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - continued

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts to Sell:

Settlement Date	Counterparty	Contracts to Deliver			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Net Unrealized Appreciation
1/25/2012	Citibank N.A.		40,922,500	EUR	$	53,088,601	$	56,268,437	$	3,179,836
1/25/2012	Royal Bank of Scotland plc		198,000	EUR		256,865		275,609		18,744
1/25/2012	Royal Bank of Scotland plc		660,000	EUR		856,216		917,243		61,027
1/25/2012	Citibank N.A.		1,085,000	EUR		1,407,566		1,506,796		99,230
1/25/2012	Royal Bank of Scotland plc		131,000	EUR		169,946		182,087		12,141
1/25/2012	Royal Bank of Scotland plc		208,000	EUR		269,838		294,524		24,686
1/18/2012	Citibank N.A.		6,821,500	GBP		10,596,239		10,631,308		35,069
1/18/2012	Citibank N.A.		190,000	GBP		295,138		298,302		3,164
Net Unrealized Appreciation									$	3,433,897

EUR— Euro

GBP— British Pound

7. Futures Contracts

The futures contracts outstanding as of December 31, 2011 and the description and unrealized depreciation were as follows:

Futures Contracts - Short	Exchange	Expiration Date		Number of Contracts			Contract Amount			Valuation as of 12/31/2011			Unrealized Depreciation
S&P 500 E Mini Index Futures	Index and Options Market		03/16/2012		(66	)	$	(4,059,521	)	$	(4,133,580	)	$	(74,059	)

8. Swaps Agreements

Open credit default swap agreements at December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Credit Default Swaps on Corporate and Sovereign Issuers - Buy Protection (a)

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal (Pay) Rate			Maturity Date		Counterparty		Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2011(b)			Notional Amount(c)		Market Value			Upfront Premium Paid/ (Received)			Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
CIT Group, Inc. 6.625% due 04/01/2018		5.00	%		9/20/2015		Deutsche Bank AG		0.00	%		3,600,000	$	(220,307	)	$	(283,500	)	$	63,193
MGM Resorts International 7.625%, due 01/15/2017		5.00	%		6/20/2015		Deutsche Bank AG		7.49	%		310,000		22,356			24,800			(2,444	)
MGM Resorts International 7.625, due 01/15/2017		5.00	%		6/20/2015		Deutsche Bank AG		7.49	%		255,000		18,390			22,950			(4,560	)
Total													$	(179,561	)	$	(235,750	)	$	56,189

33

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

8. Swaps Agreements - continued

Credit Default Swaps on Corporate and Sovereign Issues - Sell Protection (d)

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal (Pay) Rate			Maturity Date		Counterparty		Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2011(b)			Notional Amount(c)		Market Value		Upfront Premium Paid		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
CCO Holdings LLC/ CCO Holdings Capital Corp. 7.25% due 10/30/2017		8.00	%		9/20/2017		Deutsche Bank AG		0.00	%		1,500,000	$	270,093	$	270,093	$	—

Credit Default Swaps on Credit Indices - Sell Protection (d)

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal (Pay) Rate			Maturity Date		Counterparty		Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2011(b)			Notional Amount(c)		Market Value			Upfront Premium Received			Unrealized Appreciation
Markit CDX North America High Yield, Series 17, V3		5.00	%		12/20/2016		Credit Suisse International		6.80	%		6,875,000		(473,379	)	$	(517,477	)	$	44,098
Markit CDX North America High Yield, Series 17, V4		5.00	%		12/20/2016		Credit Suisse International		6.80	%		2,500,000		(172,138	)		(189,970	)		17,832
Markit CDX North America High Yield, Series 17, V5		5.00	%		12/20/2016		Credit Suisse International		6.80	%		3,822,000		(274,015	)		(348,768	)		74,753
Total													$	(919,532	)	$	(1,056,215	)	$	136,683

USD—United States Dollar

(a) If the Portfolio is a buyer of protection and a credit event occurs, as defined under the terms of that particular swap agreement, the Portfolio will either (i) receive from the seller of protection an amount equal to the notional amount of the swap and deliver the referenced obligation or underlying securities comprising the referenced index or (ii) receive a net settlement amount in the form of cash or securities equal to the notional amount of the swap less the recovery value of the referenced obligation or underlying securities comprising the referenced index.

(b) Implied credit spreads, represented in absolute terms, utilized in determining the market value of credit default swap agreements on corporate issues or sovereign issues of an emerging country as of period end serve as an indicator of the current status of the payment/performance risk and represent the likelihood or risk of default for the credit derivative. The implied credit spread of a particular referenced entity reflects the cost of buying/selling protection and may include upfront payments required to be made to enter into the agreement. Wider credit spreads represent a deterioration of the referenced entity’s credit soundness and a greater likelihood or risk of default or other credit event occurring as defined under the terms of the agreement. A credit spread identified as “Defaulted” indicates a credit event has occurred for the referenced entity or obligation.

(c) The maximum potential amount of future undiscounted payments that the Portfolio could be required to make under a credit default swap contract would be the notional amount of the contract. These potential amounts would be partially offset by any recovery values of the referenced debt obligation or net amounts received from the settlement purchased protection credit default swap contracts entered into by the Portfolio for the same referenced debt obligation.

(d) If the Portfolio is a seller of protection and a credit event occurs, as defined under the terms of that particular swap agreement, the Portfolio will either (i) pay to the buyer of protection an amount equal to the notional amount of the swap and take delivery of the referenced obligation or underlying securities comprising the referenced index or (ii) pay a net settlement amount in the form of cash or securities equal to the notional amount of the swap less the recovery value of the referenced obligation or underlying securities comprising the referenced index.

34

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

9. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

10. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

11. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gains				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$63,336,309	$	48,309,855	$	—	$	—	$	63,336,309	$	48,309,855

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Depreciation			Loss Carryforwards		Total
$60,709,970	$	11,143,479	$	(12,282,477	)	$	—	$	59,570,972

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses. At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not have any capital loss carryforwards.

12. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable

35

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

12. Recent Accounting Pronouncements - continued

inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

36

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of BlackRock High Yield Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of BlackRock High Yield Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of BlackRock High Yield Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 28, 2012

37

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

38

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

39

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

40

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the BlackRock High Yield Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

41

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the BlackRock High Yield Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and Lipper Index for the one-, three- and five-year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Barclays Capital U.S. Corporate High Yield 2% Issuer Capped Index, for the one-, three- and five- year periods ended September 30, 2011. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance relative to its benchmark. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s performance was satisfactory.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by

42

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the BlackRock High Yield Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the Expense Group median, the Expense Universe median, and the Sub-advised Expense Universe median, and that the actual management fee was below the Expense Group median and Sub-advised Expense Universe median and slightly above the Expense Universe median. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were equal to the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

43

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock High Yield Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the BlackRock High Yield Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees do not contain breakpoints. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s management fees were approximate to the asset-weighted average of comparable funds until the Portfolio reaches $500 million in assets, at which point the management fees increase above the asset-weighted average for all higher asset levels. The Board considered the effect of the Portfolio’s current size and potential growth on its performance and fees. The Board noted management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s advisory fee structure. The Board also noted that if the Portfolio’s assets increased over time, the Portfolio might realize other economies of scale if assets increased proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio was reasonable and appropriate.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

44

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio

Managed by BlackRock Advisors, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A, B, and E shares of the BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio returned 0.46%, 0.18%, and 0.21%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Russell 1000 Index¹, returned 1.50%.

Market Environment / Conditions

2011 was a frustrating year for most investors. Although ongoing debt and deleveraging concerns have been with us for some time, the degree to which they escalated in 2011 was a surprise to many (us included), as the European debt crisis became the most important driving force for global markets.

In addition to the debt crisis, the early part of 2011 was also negatively impacted by the social unrest in the Middle East/North Africa region that resulted in unexpected and damaging increases in oil prices. These events were quickly followed by a devastating earthquake, tsunami and nuclear power crisis in Japan. In our view, these events were more significant than many realized and caused a significant disruption to global economic growth in the first half of 2011.

Against this already damaged backdrop came the intensification of the debt and credit issues in Europe that led to the near collapse of the European Monetary Union. As the crisis unfolded, it became increasingly clear the real problem was that Europe could no longer rely on its monetary union, but instead required additional fiscal union. Further fiscal union, however, required austerity policies that ultimately exacerbated default risks by acting as a drag on economic growth. As the debt issues were intensifying, the European Central Bank raised interest rates in an effort to stave off inflation when, in fact, deflation was the real threat in Europe.

In the United States, economic growth weakened early in the year, although the data improved in each successive quarter. On the political front, strident partisan bickering reached new heights as brinksmanship became the norm. The lack of leadership, cooperation and decisiveness ultimately served to damage corporate and consumer confidence.

In this environment, financial markets endured unprecedented volatility as correlations between and within asset classes rose. Almost all areas of the global financial markets experienced a broad “risk on/risk off” trading pattern, with the “risk off” assets winning for the year. Bond markets generally outperformed stocks while U.S. equities, which finished the year flat, were a noticeable outperformer compared to emerging and European equities, which fell by double-digit percentages for the year.

Portfolio Review / Year-End Positioning

The Portfolio’s underperformance relative to its benchmark, the Russell 1000 Index, for the 12-month period was primarily attributable to stock selection within the Information Technology (IT) and Telecommunication services (telecom) sectors. Within the IT sector, the Portfolio was underweight in key names that outperformed during the latter half of the year; such as, Tellabs Inc., Corning Inc., and On Semiconductor, Inc., which detracted from relative returns. In addition, the Portfolio was overweight in the semiconductors industry, which struggled during the same period.

In the Telecom sector, stock selection was the primary detractor due to our preference for wireless holdings over the big integrated carriers in an environment that rewarded large-cap stocks. Wireless holdings experienced disappointing results that included a surprising uptick in customer churn, and the Portfolio’s weighting in the industry principally comprised leveraged, turnaround stories. We maintained our preference for the wireless segment as we expect the ongoing trend of smartphone penetration to continue to drive better pricing power and “stickier” customer bases (i.e., less churn), and thereby result in improved margin performance and earnings power for names in the industry.

On the positive side, the Portfolio saw relative outperformance in the Financials and Healthcare sectors. In Financials, a significant underweight position was beneficial as macroeconomic and regulatory uncertainties continued to plague the sector. In general, the ongoing European sovereign debt crisis, coupled with a still-evolving regulatory paradigm, created numerous concerns for us and, thus, the Portfolio remained broadly on the sidelines. Within Healthcare, strength was notable in the providers & services industry, where a combination of disciplined pricing and muted medical cost trends resulted in rising earnings expectations for managed care organizations—a segment in which the Portfolio was overweight. More broadly, a substantial overweight in Healthcare aided results as the market flocked to the safety of this defensive sector.

As of December 31, 2011, the Portfolio’s largest sector overweights relative to its benchmark included Healthcare, IT and Consumer Discretionary, while the largest underweight sectors were Financials and Utilities. As always, we rely on a disciplined investment process and a belief in the importance of portfolio construction and risk management to strive to deliver consistent outperformance over the long term.

Bob Doll

Senior Portfolio Manager

Daniel Hanson

Peter Stournaras

Associate Portfolio Managers

BlackRock Advisors, LLC

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio

Managed by BlackRock Advisors, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Chevron Corp.		2.7
Microsoft Corp.		2.5
Pfizer, Inc.		2.3
Exxon Mobil Corp.		2.3
Philip Morris International, Inc.		2.1
Apple, Inc.		2.0
ConocoPhillips		1.7
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.		1.5
Amgen, Inc.		1.5
UnitedHealth Group, Inc.		1.4

Top Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Non-Cyclical		35.6
Technology		19.8
Energy		11.7
Cyclical		8.7
Industrials		8.2
Communications		8.0
Financials		3.7
Basic Materials		3.2
Utilities		0.8
Cash & Cash Equivalents		0.3

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio

BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio managed by

BlackRock Advisors, LLC vs. Russell 1000 Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year		Since Inception3
BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio—Class A		0.46%		-2.00%		1.98%		—
Class B		0.18%		—		—		-3.48%
Class E		0.21%		—		—		-3.38%
Russell 1000 Index1		1.50%		-0.02%		3.34%		—

The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other classes of shares because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹The Russell 1000 Index is an unmanaged measure of the 1,000 largest companies in the Russell 3000 Index, which represents approximately 90% of the investable U.S. equity market.

²“Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gains distributions.

³ Inception of Class A shares is 3/23/1998. Inception of Class B and Class E shares is 4/30/2007.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A(a)
Actual		0.63%	$	1,000.00	$	903.90	$	3.02
Hypothetical*		0.63%		1,000.00		1,022.02		3.21
Class B(a)
Actual		0.88%	$	1,000.00	$	902.50	$	4.22
Hypothetical*		0.88%		1,000.00		1,020.76		4.48
Class E(a)
Actual		0.78%	$	1,000.00	$	903.30	$	3.74
Hypothetical*		0.78%		1,000.00		1,021.27		3.97

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

(a) The annualized expense ratio reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 3 to the Financial Statements.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—99.8% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—4.0%
General Dynamics Corp.		186,000	$	12,352,260
Lockheed Martin Corp. (a)		160,000		12,944,000
Northrop Grumman Corp. (a)		210,000		12,280,800
Raytheon Co.		80,000		3,870,400
				41,447,460
Airlines—0.3%
Southwest Airlines Co.		340,000		2,910,400
Auto Components—0.6%
Autoliv, Inc. (a)		110,000		5,883,900
Beverages—1.1%
Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc.		230,000		5,929,400
Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc.		140,000		5,527,200
				11,456,600
Biotechnology—3.9%
Amgen, Inc.		240,000		15,410,400
Biogen Idec, Inc.*		108,000		11,885,400
Gilead Sciences, Inc.*		320,000		13,097,600
				40,393,400
Chemicals—2.1%
CF Industries Holdings, Inc.		80,000		11,598,400
LyondellBasell Industries N.V. - Class A		320,000		10,396,800
				21,995,200
Commercial Services & Supplies—0.6%
Iron Mountain, Inc.		210,000		6,468,000
Communications Equipment—1.2%
Motorola Solutions, Inc.		260,000		12,035,400
Computers & Peripherals—6.0%
Apple, Inc.*		51,000		20,655,000
Dell, Inc.*		840,000		12,289,200
QLogic Corp.*		620,000		9,300,000
Seagate Technology plc		580,000		9,512,000
Western Digital Corp.*		340,000		10,523,000
				62,279,200
Construction & Engineering—1.7%
Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V.		200,000		7,560,000
Fluor Corp.		200,000		10,050,000
				17,610,000
Consumer Finance—2.1%
Capital One Financial Corp.		260,000	$	10,995,400
Discover Financial Services		470,000		11,280,000
				22,275,400
Diversified Consumer Services—2.2%
Apollo Group, Inc. - Class A*		226,000		12,174,620
ITT Educational Services, Inc.* (a)		140,000		7,964,600
Service Corp. International (a)		250,000		2,662,500
				22,801,720
Diversified Financial Services—1.0%
IntercontinentalExchange, Inc.*		10,000		1,205,500
Moody’s Corp. (a)		150,000		5,052,000
NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. (The)*		170,000		4,166,700
				10,424,200
Diversified Telecommunication Services—0.4%
AT&T, Inc.		150,000		4,536,000
Electric Utilities—0.2%
Pinnacle West Capital Corp.		40,000		1,927,200
Food & Staples Retailing—2.2%
Kroger Co. (The)		480,000		11,625,600
Safeway, Inc. (a)		560,000		11,782,400
				23,408,000
Food Products—1.1%
ConAgra Foods, Inc.		440,000		11,616,000
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—1.2%
Thoratec Corp.* (a)		70,000		2,349,200
Zimmer Holdings, Inc.*		200,000		10,684,000
				13,033,200
Health Care Providers & Services—8.1%
Aetna, Inc.		280,000		11,813,200
AmerisourceBergen Corp.		298,000		11,082,620
Cardinal Health, Inc.		130,000		5,279,300
CIGNA Corp.		30,000		1,260,000
Coventry Health Care, Inc.*		239,000		7,258,430
Health Management Associates, Inc. - Class A* (a)		1,110,000		8,180,700
Humana, Inc.		70,000		6,132,700
McKesson Corp.		90,000		7,011,900
UnitedHealth Group, Inc.		294,000		14,899,920
WellPoint, Inc.		182,000		12,057,500
				84,976,270

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Household Durables—0.4%
Tupperware Brands Corp.		70,000	$	3,917,900
Household Products—0.5%
Procter & Gamble Co. (The)		77,000		5,136,670
Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders—0.6%
Constellation Energy Group, Inc.		150,000		5,950,500
Industrial Conglomerates—1.6%
General Electric Co.		280,000		5,014,800
Tyco International, Ltd.		260,000		12,144,600
				17,159,400
Insurance—0.9%
Unum Group		462,000		9,734,340
Internet & Catalog Retail—1.0%
Expedia, Inc. (a)		190,000		5,513,800
TripAdvisor, Inc.* (a)		190,000		4,789,900
				10,303,700
Internet Software & Services—0.2%
Google, Inc. - Class A*		3,000		1,937,700
IT Services—2.8%
Alliance Data Systems Corp.* (a)		90,000		9,345,600
International Business Machines Corp.		46,000		8,458,480
Western Union Co.		630,000		11,503,800
				29,307,880
Life Sciences Tools & Services—0.9%
Agilent Technologies, Inc.*		270,000		9,431,100
Media—2.8%
CBS Corp. - Class B		450,000		12,213,000
Interpublic Group of Cos., Inc. (The)		630,000		6,129,900
Time Warner Cable, Inc.		180,000		11,442,600
				29,785,500
Multiline Retail—1.6%
Macy’s, Inc.		364,000		11,713,520
Nordstrom, Inc.		110,000		5,468,100
				17,181,620
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—11.7%
Chevron Corp.		267,000		28,408,800
ConocoPhillips		250,000		18,217,500
Exxon Mobil Corp.		280,000		23,732,800
HollyFrontier Corp.		470,000		10,998,000
Marathon Oil Corp.		451,000		13,200,770
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—(Continued)
Murphy Oil Corp.		90,000	$	5,016,600
Tesoro Corp.*		490,000		11,446,400
Valero Energy Corp.		550,000		11,577,500
				122,598,370
Paper & Forest Products—1.1%
International Paper Co.		400,000		11,840,000
Personal Products—1.0%
Herbalife, Ltd.		210,000		10,850,700
Pharmaceuticals—7.7%
Abbott Laboratories		190,000		10,683,700
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.		460,000		16,210,400
Eli Lilly & Co.		330,000		13,714,800
Forest Laboratories, Inc.*		350,000		10,591,000
Johnson & Johnson		74,000		4,852,920
Pfizer, Inc.		1,120,000		24,236,800
				80,289,620
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—8.3%
Altera Corp.		110,000		4,081,000
Applied Materials, Inc.		950,000		10,174,500
Avago Technologies, Ltd.		340,000		9,812,400
KLA-Tencor Corp.		230,000		11,097,500
Marvell Technology Group, Ltd.*		740,000		10,249,000
Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.		430,000		11,197,200
NVIDIA Corp.*		710,000		9,840,600
Teradyne, Inc.* (a)		710,000		9,677,300
Xilinx, Inc.		350,000		11,221,000
				87,350,500
Software—6.6%
Activision Blizzard, Inc.		890,000		10,964,800
CA, Inc.		510,000		10,309,650
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.* (a)		260,000		2,704,000
Microsoft Corp.		990,000		25,700,400
Symantec Corp.*		730,000		11,424,500
TIBCO Software, Inc.*		330,000		7,890,300
				68,993,650
Specialty Retail—5.1%
AutoZone, Inc.*		32,000		10,399,040
Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.*		175,000		10,144,750
Chico’s FAS, Inc. (a)		350,000		3,899,000
GameStop Corp. - Class A* (a)		417,000		10,062,210
Limited Brands, Inc.		263,000		10,612,050
Williams-Sonoma, Inc.		210,000		8,085,000
				53,202,050

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares/Par Amount		Value
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—1.1%
Coach, Inc.		190,000	$	11,597,600
Tobacco—3.3%
Lorillard, Inc.		110,000		12,540,000
Philip Morris International, Inc.		280,000		21,974,400
				34,514,400
Wireless Telecommunication Services—0.6%
MetroPCS Communications, Inc.*		730,000		6,336,400
Total Common Stocks (Cost $985,888,793)				1,044,897,150
Short-Term Investments—7.9%
Mutual Funds—7.6%
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (b)		79,471,713		79,471,713
Repurchase Agreement—0.3%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement, dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $3,232,004 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $3,180,000 U.S.Treasury Notes at 1.750% due 01/31/14 with a value of $3,299,250.	$	3,232,000		3,232,000
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $82,703,713)				82,703,713
Total Investments—107.7% (Cost $1,068,592,506#)				1,127,600,863
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(7.7)%				(80,524,365	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	1,047,076,498

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $1,077,094,833. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $90,706,063 and $(40,200,033), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $50,506,030 for federal income tax purposes.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities loaned was $76,908,160 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $79,471,713. The cash collateral is invested in a money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian.

(b) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities lending transactions.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Total Common Stocks*	$	1,044,897,150	$	—	$	—	$	1,044,897,150
Short-Term Investments
Mutual Funds		79,471,713		—		—		79,471,713
Repurchase Agreement		—		3,232,000		—		3,232,000
Total Short-Term Investments		79,471,713		3,232,000		—		82,703,713
Total Investments	$	1,124,368,863	$	3,232,000	$	—	$	1,127,600,863

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)(b)	$	1,124,368,863
Repurchase Agreement		3,232,000
Cash		58
Receivable for shares sold		231,372
Dividends receivable		893,782
Total assets		1,128,726,075
Liabilities
Payables for:
Shares redeemed		1,443,675
Collateral for securities loaned		79,471,713
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		521,851
Distribution and service fees - Class B		20,701
Distribution and service fees - Class E		12,009
Administration fees		4,564
Custodian and accounting fees		6,650
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		143,347
Total liabilities		81,649,577
Net Assets	$	1,047,076,498
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	1,345,176,799
Accumulated net realized loss		(370,145,111	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments		59,008,357
Undistributed net investment income		13,036,453
Net Assets	$	1,047,076,498
Net Assets
Class A	$	853,295,994
Class B		98,954,777
Class E		94,825,727
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		98,673,326
Class B		11,615,089
Class E		11,041,908
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	8.65
Class B		8.52
Class E		8.59

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreement, was $1,065,360,506.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $76,908,160.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	20,244,201
Interest (b)		229,621
Total investment income		20,473,822
Expenses
Management fees		6,603,006
Administration fees		57,387
Custodian and accounting fees		85,276
Distribution and service fees - Class B		231,525
Distribution and service fees - Class E		154,923
Audit and tax services		33,061
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Shareholder reporting		255,282
Insurance		4,155
Miscellaneous		15,820
Total expenses		7,509,145
Less management fee waiver		(88,706	)
Net expenses		7,420,439
Net investment income		13,053,383
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments
Net realized gain on investments		89,746,779
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments		(96,765,362	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments		(7,018,583	)
Net Increase in Net Assets from Operations	$	6,034,800

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $234,000.

(b) Includes net income on securities loaned of $229,437.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	13,053,383		$	12,546,205
Net realized gain on investments		89,746,779			79,975,876
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments		(96,765,362	)		35,437,565
Net increase in net assets resulting from operations		6,034,800			127,959,646
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(10,408,699	)		(12,053,700	)
Class B		(835,668	)		(713,285	)
Class E		(1,028,712	)		(1,220,015	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(12,273,079	)		(13,987,000	)
Net decrease in net assets from capital share transactions		(70,601,073	)		(71,950,559	)
Net Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets		(76,839,352	)		42,022,087
Net assets at beginning of period		1,123,915,850			1,081,893,763
Net assets at end of period	$	1,047,076,498		$	1,123,915,850
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	13,036,453		$	12,538,050

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		1,257,970		$	10,929,454			967,743		$	7,604,914
Reinvestments		1,085,370			10,408,699			1,429,858			12,053,700
Redemptions		(11,584,575	)		(103,419,700	)		(12,566,712	)		(99,229,090	)
Net decrease		(9,241,235	)	$	(82,081,547	)		(10,169,111	)	$	(79,570,476	)
Class B
Sales		4,637,743		$	41,046,965			3,169,064		$	24,637,990
Reinvestments		88,337			835,668			85,628			713,285
Redemptions		(2,345,942	)		(20,499,457	)		(1,348,415	)		(10,485,056	)
Net increase		2,380,138		$	21,383,176			1,906,277		$	14,866,219
Class E
Sales		1,947,185		$	17,452,087			1,754,461		$	13,820,162
Reinvestments		107,945			1,028,712			145,413			1,220,015
Redemptions		(3,185,184	)		(28,383,501	)		(2,830,210	)		(22,286,479	)
Net decrease		(1,130,054	)	$	(9,902,702	)		(930,336	)	$	(7,246,302	)
Decrease derived from capital shares transactions				$	(70,601,073	)				$	(71,950,559	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	8.70		$	7.82		$	6.67		$	11.14		$	11.20
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.11			0.10			0.09			0.11			0.09
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.06	)		0.89			1.17			(4.10	)		0.63
Total from investment operations		0.05			0.99			1.26			(3.99	)		0.72
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.10	)		(0.11	)		(0.11	)		(0.06	)		(0.08	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.42	)		(0.70	)
Total distributions		(0.10	)		(0.11	)		(0.11	)		(0.48	)		(0.78	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	8.65		$	8.70		$	7.82		$	6.67		$	11.14
Total Return (%)		0.46			12.64			19.34			(37.17	)		6.55
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.64			0.64			0.65			0.62			0.65	(c)
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(d)		0.63			0.64			0.65			0.62			0.64
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.20			1.21			1.39			1.20			0.83
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		97.5			132.5			130.4			102.8			87.3
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	853.3		$	939.4		$	923.5		$	1,041.2		$	1,716.0

	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	8.58		$	7.72		$	6.58		$	11.01		$	10.91
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.09			0.08			0.07			0.08			0.04
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.07	)		0.87			1.16			(4.04	)		0.06
Total from investment operations		0.02			0.95			1.23			(3.96	)		0.10
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.08	)		(0.09	)		(0.09	)		(0.05	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.42	)		0.00
Total distributions		(0.08	)		(0.09	)		(0.09	)		(0.47	)		0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	8.52		$	8.58		$	7.72		$	6.58		$	11.01
Total Return (%)		0.18			12.36			19.10			(37.36	)		0.92
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.89			0.89			0.90			0.87			0.89	*(c)
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(d)		0.88			0.89			0.90			0.87			0.89	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.99			0.98			1.11			0.96			0.58	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		97.5			132.5			130.4			102.8			87.3
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	99.0		$	79.3		$	56.6		$	33.5		$	47.0

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	8.65		$	7.77		$	6.62		$	11.07		$	10.96
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.09			0.08			0.08			0.09			0.05
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.06	)		0.89			1.16			(4.07	)		0.06
Total from investment operations		0.03			0.97			1.24			(3.98	)		0.11
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.09	)		(0.09	)		(0.09	)		(0.05	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.42	)		0.00
Total distributions		(0.09	)		(0.09	)		(0.09	)		(0.47	)		0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	8.59		$	8.65		$	7.77		$	6.62		$	11.07
Total Return (%)		0.21			12.58			19.20			(37.30	)		1.00
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.79			0.79			0.80			0.77			0.79	*(c)
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(d)		0.78			0.79			0.80			0.77			0.79	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.04			1.06			1.23			1.04			0.69	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		97.5			132.5			130.4			102.8			87.3
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	94.8		$	105.2		$	101.8		$	96.6		$	179.6

* Annualized.

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Commencement of operations was 4/30/2007.

(c) Excludes effect of deferred expense reimbursement. See Note 3 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

(d) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Advisor, if applicable.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Companies (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A, B, and E Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to deferred trustees’ compensation, capital loss carryforwards and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Securities Lending - The Portfolio may lend its portfolio securities to certain qualified brokers who borrow securities in order to complete certain securities transactions. By lending its portfolio securities, the Portfolio attempts to increase its net investment income through the receipt of income on the loaned securities. Any gain or loss in the market price of the loaned securities that might occur and any interest earned or dividends declared during the term of the loan would accrue to the account of the Portfolio.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

The Trust has entered into a securities lending arrangement with the custodian, State Street Bank and Trust Company (the “custodian”). Under this arrangement, the custodian is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral at least equal to 102% of the market value of the loaned securities (105% for foreign equity securities), at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities must be maintained for the duration of the loan. Cash collateral is generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The Navigator Portfolio is a registered money market fund which invests in a variety of high quality U.S. dollar-denominated instruments. If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower shall be required to deliver, by the close of business on the following business day, an additional amount of collateral so that the total amount of posted collateral equals at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of net income (income after the deduction of expenses and fees of the Navigator Portfolio) on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the custodian and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by U.S. Treasuries, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the custodian. The risks associated with lending portfolio securities include, but are not limited to, possible delays in receiving additional collateral or in the recovery of the loaned securities, possible loss of rights in the collateral should the borrower fail financially, as well as risk of loss in the value of the collateral or the value of the investments made with the collateral. Net interest income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2011 is disclosed in the footnotes to the Statement of Operations. Any outstanding loans by the Portfolio at December 31, 2011 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with BlackRock Advisors, LLC (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year  ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$6,603,006		0.625	%	First $250 Million
		0.600	%	$250 Million to $500 Million
		0.575	%	$500 Million to $1 Billion
		0.550	%	$1 Billion to $2 Billion
		0.500	%	Over $2 Billion

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Management Fee Waiver - Effective May 1, 2011, the Subadviser reduced the subadvisory fee it charges to the Adviser for managing the Portfolio. This fee change reduced the subadvisory fee charged on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets in excess of $500 million but less than $2 billion. In connection with this change in the subadvisory fee, the Adviser contractually agreed, effective May 24, 2011, to waive a portion of the management fee through April 30, 2012. This waiver reduced the management fee to the annual rate of: 0.550% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets in excess of $500 million up to $1 billion and 0.525% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets in excess of $1 billion up to $2 billion. This arrangement was voluntary for the period from May 1, 2011 through May 23, 2011. Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as a management fee waiver in the Statement of Operations.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Distribution Agreements and Plans - The Trust has distribution agreements with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A, Class B and Class E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B and Class E distribution plans provide that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% and 0.25%, respectively, of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B and Class E Shares. However, under the Class B and Class E distribution agreements, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B and Class E distribution plans are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% and 0.15% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares, respectively. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B and Class E distribution plans and distribution agreements, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B and Class E Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. as designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$—	$	1,097,214,230	$	—	$	1,169,241,937

The Portfolio engaged in security transactions with other accounts managed by BlackRock Advisors, LLC that amounted to $15,321,600 in Sales of investments which is included above.

5. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk - continued

The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

7. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income				Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2011		2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$	12,273,079	$	13,987,000	$	—	$	—	$	12,273,079	$	13,987,000

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards			Total
$13,061,520	$	—	$	50,506,029	$	(361,642,783	)	$	(298,075,234	)

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses.

As of December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and the pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards and expiration dates were as follows:

Expiring 12/31/2016		Expiring 12/31/2017		Total
$	154,525,176	$	207,117,607	$	361,642,783

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements - continued

related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 23, 2012

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5  Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5  Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe for the one- and five- year periods ended June 30, 2011, and underperformed the median of its Performance Universe for the three- year period ended June 30, 2011. The Board also considered that the Portfolio outperformed its Lipper Index for the one- year period ended June 30, 2011 and underperformed its Lipper Index for the three- and five- year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Russell 1000 Index, for the one-, three- and five-year periods ended September 30, 2011. The Board also took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance, including the impact of recent market conditions on the Sub-Adviser’s investment style, and the Sub-Adviser’s strong long-term performance. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s overall performance was adequate.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees were above the Expense Group median, the Expense Universe median, and the Sub-advised Expense Universe median, and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the Expense Group median, the Expense Universe median, and the Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were above the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were above the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Fund’s expenses. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the

25

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

With respect to the BlackRock Large Cap Core Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee and sub-advisory fee each contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s management fees were above the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

26

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio

Managed by CBRE Clarion Securities, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A, B, and E shares of the Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio returned -5.28%, -5.59%, and -5.41%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the FTSE EPRA/NAREIT Developed Index¹, returned -5.82%.

Market Environment/Conditions

The global property indices were generally in-line with the global stock indices in 2011, but in jurisdictions where real estate investment trusts (REITs) dominated, property stocks outperformed local equities. In an unsettled economic and stock market environment, the earnings visibility and attractive dividends of REITs found favor with investors. Risk aversion by investors re-emerged during the second half of the year in particular as equities generally produced negative returns worldwide. Real estate cash flows proved to be relatively resilient in this uncertain macro-economic environment given the duration of lease terms and gradually improving fundamentals.

Share price performance for real estate stocks across regions varied significantly in 2011. The property stocks in North America were the best absolute performers for the year, in both the U.S. and Canada, up a little more than 8% for the year. Performance in the other major regions trailed by a wide margin, with Europe down 12.3% and the Asia-Pacific region down 19.6%. Australia was the relative star within the Asia-Pacific region, with negative total return of 2.0% versus sharp declines elsewhere. The U.S. dollar (USD) weakened materially during the first half of the year, only to reverse direction during the second half as investors sought safety and increasingly viewed the USD as a favorable alternative to other major currencies. Currency exchange rates by December 31 showed a modest net change versus a year prior, with the USD generally strengthening slightly relative to other major currencies. The exception was the Japanese yen, against which the USD weakened by slightly more than 5% for the year.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

Relative performance benefited from favorable asset allocation and stock selection during the year. Asset allocation added value over the course of the year as we applied some “lessons learned” from last year, including a more measured view of macro-economic risks. Asset allocation was particularly effective via an underweight to the underperforming European region plus favorable geographic allocation in the Asia-Pacific region, where an underweight to the underperforming Hong Kong property companies added value. Additionally, we did a good job of stock picking, which remains a core strength of our investment team. In the U.S., overweight positions in the mall, apartment, and central business district office companies added to relative performance. In the Asia-Pacific region, positioning in Hong Kong, which emphasized landlord-oriented business models over those more dependent on residential development activities, added value during the year. In Europe, stock selection was a modest drag as underperformance in France more than offset modest relative outperformance elsewhere on the Continent.

With respect to portfolio positioning, we continued emphasizing companies that generate the majority of their income via stable, landlord-oriented cash flows in geographies and property types with favorable supply/demand dynamics. Regions and companies with above-average dividend yields and companies that are likely to increase dividend payouts remain important considerations in portfolio stock selection. Geographically, we remained sharply underweight the Eurozone and were more favorably inclined to the Americas and Asia-Pacific regions. By property type, in the U.S. we remained overweight most notably the mall and apartment sectors and remained underweight the office and shopping center sectors. Within the office sector, we were favorably inclined to companies with central business district exposure in Manhattan and other cities which are cyclically ahead of the pack. These gateway cities tend to be located on the Eastern and Western seaboards.

In Europe, we had a bias to the dominant Western European retail companies ex the U.K., and a preference for office companies in London that focus on the supply-constrained West End submarket. In Asia, we were positively predisposed to the retail sector, which is generally more stable than other major asset classes, such as the office sector. We remained cautious toward Asian residential markets in which governments maintain a “cooling” bias and/or supply is an issue, such as Singapore and China; however, we became more positive on markets where supply was constrained, government tightening measures were subsiding, and valuations were compelling, such as Hong Kong. In Australia, where we had been overweight for two years running, we emphasized the commercial sectors and were cautious on residential.

T. Ritson Ferguson, Co-Chief Investment Officer

Steven D. Burton, Co-Chief Investment Officer

Joseph P. Smith, Co-Chief Investment Officer

Portfolio Managers

CBRE Clarion Securities, LLC

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio

Managed by CBRE Clarion Securities, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Simon Property Group, Inc. (REIT)		6.0
Sun Hung Kai Properties, Ltd.		4.0
AvalonBay Communities, Inc. (REIT)		2.9
Equity Residential (REIT)		2.9
Westfield Group (REIT)		2.8
Boston Properties, Inc. (REIT)		2.8
Prologis, Inc. (REIT)		2.6
Mitsubishi Estate Co., Ltd.		2.5
Vornado Realty Trust (REIT)		2.5
Mitsui Fudosan Co., Ltd.		2.4

Top Countries

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
United States		49.5
Hong Kong		12.4
Australia		9.9
Japan		8.5
Canada		4.8
United Kingdom		4.5
France		3.8
Singapore		3.8
Switzerland		0.7
Others		2.1

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio

Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio managed by

CBRE Clarion Securities LLC vs. FTSE EPRA/NAREIT Developed Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		5 Year		Since Inception3
Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio—Class A		-5.28%		-5.82%		5.49%
Class B		-5.59%		-6.04%		5.23%
Class E		-5.41%		-5.94%		5.34%
FTSE EPRA/NAREIT Developed Index1		-5.82%		-5.28%		7.24%

The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other classes of shares because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹The FTSE EPRA/NAREIT Developed Index is designed to track the performance of listed real estate companies and REITS worldwide.

²“Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

³Inception of Class A, B and E shares is 5/1/2004. Index returns are based on an inception date of 5/1/2004.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A
Actual		0.68%	$	1,000.00	$	886.80	$	3.23
Hypothetical*		0.68%		1,000.00		1,021.77		3.47
Class B
Actual		0.93%	$	1,000.00	$	886.30	$	4.42
Hypothetical*		0.93%		1,000.00		1,020.51		4.74
Class E
Actual		0.83%	$	1,000.00	$	886.70	$	3.95
Hypothetical*		0.83%		1,000.00		1,021.02		4.23

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—97.9% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Australia—9.9%
Dexus Property Group (REIT) (a)		14,488,012	$	12,329,712
Goodman Group (REIT)		24,881,614		14,512,749
GPT Group (REIT)		4,587,320		14,423,278
Investa Office Fund (REIT)		13,592,300		8,351,238
Mirvac Group (REIT) (a)		7,015,497		8,481,553
Stockland (REIT) (a)		6,456,436		21,084,051
Westfield Group (REIT)		4,986,550		39,934,736
Westfield Retail Trust (REIT) (a)		8,298,815		21,156,300
				140,273,617
Brazil—0.5%
BR Malls Participacoes S.A.		372,600		3,619,629
Sonae Sierra Brasil S.A.		216,000		2,779,252
				6,398,881
Canada—4.8%
Brookfield Office Properties, Inc.		1,129,100		17,659,124
Calloway Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT)		388,700		10,233,072
Canadian Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT)		92,000		3,202,832
Cominar Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT)		202,000		4,376,319
H&R Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT)		254,300		5,817,001
Primaris Retail Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT)		146,500		2,969,332
RioCan Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT)		895,100		23,265,470
				67,523,150
Cayman Islands—0.3%
China Resources Land, Ltd. (a)		2,968,000		4,768,726
France—3.8%
ICADE (REIT) (a)		87,430		6,884,040
Klepierre (REIT)		109,480		3,117,308
Mercialys (REIT)		188,570		6,088,186
Societe Immobiliere de Location pour l’Industrie et le Commerce (REIT)		47,400		4,605,101
Unibail-Rodamco (REIT)		187,610		33,652,719
				54,347,354
Germany—0.5%
GSW Immobilien AG*		266,780		7,739,392
Hong Kong—12.4%
Cheung Kong Holdings, Ltd.		653,900	$	7,760,313
China Overseas Land & Investment, Ltd. (a)		7,857,000		13,173,576
Great Eagle Holdings, Ltd.		1,005,600		1,971,600
Hang Lung Properties, Ltd.		4,910,077		13,959,351
Hongkong Land Holdings, Ltd.		3,233,345		14,637,152
Kerry Properties, Ltd.		2,308,600		7,631,012
Link REIT (The) (REIT)		6,668,000		24,568,061
Longfor Properties (a)		8,405,000		9,518,972
Sino Land Co., Ltd. (a)		6,431,199		9,150,636
Soho China, Ltd. (a)		5,523,900		3,689,967
Sun Hung Kai Properties, Ltd.		4,576,700		57,122,882
Wharf Holdings, Ltd. (The)		2,684,080		12,143,905
				175,327,427
Japan—8.4%
Advance Residence Investment (REIT)		1,527		2,946,966
Frontier Real Estate Investment Corp. (REIT) (a)		792		6,418,388
Japan Real Estate Investment Corp. (REIT) (a)		1,215		9,465,959
Japan Retail Fund Investment Corp. (REIT) (a)		4,099		6,070,585
Kenedix Realty Investment Corp. (REIT) (a)		1,186		3,448,356
Mitsubishi Estate Co., Ltd.		2,350,910		35,066,322
Mitsui Fudosan Co., Ltd.		2,371,574		34,506,134
Nippon Accommodations Fund, Inc. (REIT)		522		3,511,327
Nippon Building Fund, Inc. (REIT) (a)		861		7,043,495
Nomura Real Estate Holdings, Inc.		415,000		6,168,079
Tokyo Tatemono Co., Ltd.*		306,000		924,552
United Urban Investment Corp. (REIT)		3,472		3,934,885
				119,505,048
Netherlands—0.3%
Corio N.V. (REIT)		96,630		4,193,006
Singapore—3.8%
Ascendas Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT)		2,145,000		3,032,810
CapitaCommercial Trust (REIT) (a)		12,475,000		10,145,916
CapitaLand, Ltd.		9,538,700		16,234,479

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Singapore—(Continued)
CapitaMall Trust (REIT) (a)		7,838,823	$	10,274,088
Global Logistic Properties, Ltd.*		10,093,500		13,648,838
				53,336,131
Sweden—0.5%
Castellum A.B.		327,310		4,050,277
Hufvudstaden A.B.—A Shares		254,120		2,587,648
				6,637,925
Switzerland—0.7%
PSP Swiss Property AG*		31,100		2,602,466
Swiss Prime Site AG*		102,010		7,673,026
				10,275,492
United Kingdom—4.5%
British Land Co. plc (REIT)		2,004,087		14,335,265
Derwent London plc (REIT)		466,240		11,265,526
Great Portland Estates plc (REIT)		1,375,810		6,882,421
Hammerson plc (REIT)		2,579,869		14,365,411
Land Securities Group plc (REIT)		1,049,403		10,321,155
Safestore Holdings plc		2,288,900		3,547,177
Segro plc (REIT)		934,705		3,024,114
				63,741,069
United States—47.5%
AvalonBay Communities, Inc. (REIT)		317,448		41,458,709
Boston Properties, Inc. (REIT) (a)		400,700		39,909,720
BRE Properties, Inc. (REIT)		356,346		17,988,346
DDR Corp. (REIT)		1,100,800		13,396,736
Equity Residential (REIT)		709,400		40,457,082
Essex Property Trust, Inc. (REIT) (a)		137,400		19,306,074
Federal Realty Investment Trust (REIT)		195,934		17,781,011
General Growth Properties, Inc. (REIT)		1,581,432		23,753,109
HCP, Inc. (REIT)		670,700		27,787,101
Health Care REIT, Inc. (REIT)		498,400		27,177,752
Highwoods Properties, Inc. (REIT) (a)		138,378		4,105,675
Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc. (REIT) (a)		2,018,971		29,820,202
Kimco Realty Corp. (REIT)		575,000		9,338,000
Liberty Property Trust (REIT) (a)		591,800		18,274,784
Macerich Co. (The) (REIT)		553,788		28,021,673
United States—(Continued)
Pebblebrook Hotel Trust (REIT) (a)		295,900	$	5,675,362
Peoples Choice Financial Corp. (144A)* (b)		60,000		0
Post Properties, Inc. (REIT)		213,800		9,347,336
Prologis, Inc. (REIT)		1,286,668		36,785,838
Public Storage (REIT)		244,200		32,835,132
Simon Property Group, Inc. (REIT)		660,043		85,105,944
SL Green Realty Corp. (REIT)		357,160		23,801,142
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. (a)		261,100		12,524,967
Tanger Factory Outlet Centers, Inc. (REIT) (a)		287,530		8,430,380
Taubman Centers, Inc. (REIT)		246,813		15,327,087
UDR, Inc. (REIT)		870,075		21,838,883
Ventas, Inc. (REIT)		515,079		28,396,305
Vornado Realty Trust (REIT)		455,769		35,030,405
				673,674,755
Total Common Stocks (Cost $1,295,265,236)				1,387,741,973
Short-Term Investments—11.4%
Mutual Funds—9.7%
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (c)		137,414,637		137,414,637
Repurchase Agreement—1.7%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $24,846,028 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $25,375,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. at 0.625% due 12/23/13 with a value of $25,343,281.	$	24,846,000		24,846,000
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $162,260,637)				162,260,637
Total Investments—109.3% (Cost $1,457,525,873#)				1,550,002,610
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(9.3)%				(132,037,800	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	1,417,964,810

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $1,524,965,992. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $110,568,802 and $(85,532,184), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $25,036,618 for federal income tax purpose.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities loaned was $132,074,101 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $137,414,637 and non-cash collateral with a value of $239,739. The cash collateral is invested in a money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The non-cash collateral received consists primarily of government securities and bank letters of credit, and is held for the benefit of the Portfolio at the Portfolio’s custodian. The Portfolio cannot repledge or resell this collateral. As such, this collateral is excluded from the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

(b) Security was valued in good faith under procedures approved by the Board of Trustees.

(c) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities lending transactions.

(144A)— Securities exempt from registration under Rule 144A of the Securities Act of 1933. These securities may be resold in transactions exempt from registration, normally to qualified institutional buyers. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of 144A securities was $0, which is 0.0% of net assets.

(REIT)— A Real Estate Investment Trust is a pooled investment vehicle that invests primarily in income-producing real estate or real estate related loans or interest.

Ten Largest  Industries as of December 31, 2011 (Unaudited)
	% of Net Assets
Real Estate Investment Trusts (REIT)		31.4
Diversified		16.3
Real Estate		12.3
Regional Malls		8.6
Operating & Development		6.2
Apartments		6.0
Health Care Providers & Services		5.9
Office		5.1
Lodging		3.0
Commercial Services		1.7

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Common Stocks
Australia	$	—	$	140,273,617	$	—	$	140,273,617
Brazil		6,398,881		—		—		6,398,881
Canada		67,523,150		—		—		67,523,150
Cayman Islands		—		4,768,726		—		4,768,726
France		—		54,347,354		—		54,347,354
Germany		—		7,739,392		—		7,739,392
Hong Kong		—		175,327,427		—		175,327,427
Japan		—		119,505,048		—		119,505,048
Netherlands		—		4,193,006		—		4,193,006
Singapore		—		53,336,131		—		53,336,131
Sweden		—		6,637,925		—		6,637,925
Switzerland		—		10,275,492		—		10,275,492
United Kingdom		—		63,741,069		—		63,741,069
United States		673,674,755		—		—		673,674,755
Total Common Stocks		747,596,786		640,145,187		—		1,387,741,973
Short-Term Investments
Mutual Funds		137,414,637		—		—		137,414,637
Repurchase Agreement		—		24,846,000		—		24,846,000
Total Short-Term Investments		137,414,637		24,846,000		—		162,260,637
Total Investments	$	885,011,423	$	664,991,187	$	—	$	1,550,002,610

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)(b)	$	1,525,156,610
Repurchase Agreement		24,846,000
Cash		133,751
Cash denominated in foreign currencies (c)		47,173
Receivable for investments sold		6,434,507
Receivable for shares sold		307,450
Dividends receivable		6,072,307
Interest receivable		14
Total assets		1,562,997,812
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		6,147,506
Shares redeemed		431,774
Collateral for securities loaned		137,414,637
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		728,584
Distribution and service fees - Class B		93,565
Distribution and service fees - Class E		4,488
Administration fees		5,845
Custodian and accounting fees		50,045
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		131,491
Total liabilities		145,033,002
Net Assets	$	1,417,964,810
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	1,868,014,980
Accumulated net realized loss		(545,470,155	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		92,491,938
Undistributed net investment income		2,928,047
Net Assets	$	1,417,964,810
Net Assets
Class A	$	939,002,365
Class B		443,625,528
Class E		35,336,917
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		100,779,300
Class B		47,821,481
Class E		3,797,558
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	9.32
Class B		9.28
Class E		9.31

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreement, was $1,432,679,873.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $132,074,101.

(c) Identified cost of cash denominated in foreign currencies was $47,065.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	43,091,566
Interest (b)		659,935
Total investment income		43,751,501
Expenses
Management fees		8,828,978
Administration fees		73,030
Custodian and accounting fees		578,725
Distribution and service fees - Class B		1,176,575
Distribution and service fees - Class E		59,654
Audit and tax services		45,472
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Shareholder reporting		164,799
Insurance		5,785
Miscellaneous		16,929
Total expenses		11,018,657
Less broker commission recapture		(72,762	)
Net expenses		10,945,895
Net investment income		32,805,606
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments and Foreign Currency Transactions
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments (c)		50,409,458
Foreign currency transactions		(189,089	)
Net realized gain on investments and foreign currency transactions		50,220,369
Net change in unrealized depreciation from:
Investments		(170,442,431	)
Foreign currency transactions		(19,177	)
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		(170,461,608	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments and foreign currency transactions		(120,241,239	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(87,435,633	)

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $2,347,961.

(b) Includes net income on securities loaned of $656,429.

(c) Net of foreign taxes of $134,682.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	32,805,606		$	33,430,189
Net realized gain (loss) on investments and foreign currency transactions		50,220,369			(14,947,396	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments and foreign currency transactions		(170,461,608	)		173,588,201
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations		(87,435,633	)		192,070,994
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(35,178,897	)		(64,405,877	)
Class B		(18,116,954	)		(32,700,835	)
Class E		(1,572,967	)		(3,244,095	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(54,868,818	)		(100,350,807	)
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		197,511,452			115,267,599
Net Increase in Net Assets		55,207,001			206,987,786
Net assets at beginning of period		1,362,757,809			1,155,770,023
Net assets at end of period	$	1,417,964,810		$	1,362,757,809
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	2,928,047		$	6,651,694

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		21,268,239		$	217,664,125			10,747,234		$	100,028,325
Reinvestments		3,412,114			35,178,897			7,000,639			64,405,877
Redemptions		(7,897,554	)		(78,693,005	)		(9,676,184	)		(90,756,921	)
Net increase		16,782,799		$	174,150,017			8,071,689		$	73,677,281
Class B
Sales		6,926,418		$	69,053,269			6,914,873		$	64,973,323
Reinvestments		1,762,350			18,116,954			3,562,183			32,700,835
Redemptions		(6,110,102	)		(60,919,402	)		(5,935,730	)		(55,159,730	)
Net increase		2,578,666		$	26,250,821			4,541,326		$	42,514,428
Class E
Sales		267,897		$	2,643,229			294,653		$	2,833,161
Reinvestments		152,715			1,572,967			352,619			3,244,095
Redemptions		(718,041	)		(7,105,582	)		(748,401	)		(7,001,366	)
Net decrease		(297,429	)	$	(2,889,386	)		(101,129	)	$	(924,110	)
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	197,511,452					$	115,267,599

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.23		$	9.58		$	7.40		$	14.08		$	18.13
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.23			0.27			0.24			0.32			0.22
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.73	)		1.20			2.21			(5.53	)		(2.59	)
Total from investment operations		(0.50	)		1.47			2.45			(5.21	)		(2.37	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.41	)		(0.82	)		(0.27	)		(0.25	)		(0.19	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(1.22	)		(1.49	)
Total distributions		(0.41	)		(0.82	)		(0.27	)		(1.47	)		(1.68	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	9.32		$	10.23		$	9.58		$	7.40		$	14.08
Total Return (%)		(5.28	)		16.28			35.12			(41.56	)		(14.79	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.67			0.69			0.73			0.67			0.62
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.67			0.69			0.73			0.69			0.65
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.35			2.86			3.16			2.91			1.35
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		30.7			54.5			66.0			146.2			110.0
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	939.0		$	859.6		$	727.0		$	534.1		$	711.9

	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.20		$	9.55		$	7.37		$	14.01		$	18.06
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.21			0.24			0.22			0.29			0.21
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.74	)		1.21			2.21			(5.50	)		(2.62	)
Total from investment operations		(0.53	)		1.45			2.43			(5.21	)		(2.41	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.39	)		(0.80	)		(0.25	)		(0.21	)		(0.15	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(1.22	)		(1.49	)
Total distributions		(0.39	)		(0.80	)		(0.25	)		(1.43	)		(1.64	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	9.28		$	10.20		$	9.55		$	7.37		$	14.01
Total Return (%)		(5.59	)		16.10			34.74			(41.67	)		(15.01	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.92			0.94			0.98			0.93			0.90
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.92			0.94			0.98			0.92			0.87
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.09			2.60			2.90			2.57			1.30
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		30.7			54.5			66.0			146.2			110.0
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	443.6		$	461.3		$	388.6		$	279.2		$	484.8

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.22		$	9.57		$	7.38		$	14.04		$	18.08
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.22			0.25			0.23			0.29			0.26
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.74	)		1.21			2.22			(5.51	)		(2.64	)
Total from investment operations		(0.52	)		1.46			2.45			(5.22	)		(2.38	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.39	)		(0.81	)		(0.26	)		(0.22	)		(0.17	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(1.22	)		(1.49	)
Total distributions		(0.39	)		(0.81	)		(0.26	)		(1.44	)		(1.66	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	9.31		$	10.22		$	9.57		$	7.38		$	14.04
Total Return (%)		(5.41	)		16.14			34.96			(41.68	)		(14.86	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.82			0.84			0.88			0.83			0.80
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.82			0.84			0.88			0.81			0.76
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.17			2.68			3.02			2.62			1.54
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		30.7			54.5			66.0			146.2			110.0
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	35.3		$	41.9		$	40.1		$	34.7		$	72.7

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A, B and E Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to foreign currency transactions, forward transactions, passive foreign investment companies (PFICs), Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), deferred trustees’ compensation, capital loss carryforwards, broker commission recapture, and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Securities Lending - The Portfolio may lend its portfolio securities to certain qualified brokers who borrow securities in order to complete certain securities transactions. By lending its portfolio securities, the Portfolio attempts to increase its net investment income through the receipt of income on the loaned securities. Any gain or loss in the market price of the loaned securities that might occur and any interest earned or dividends declared during the term of the loan would accrue to the account of the Portfolio.

The Trust has entered into a securities lending arrangement with the custodian, State Street Bank and Trust Company (the “custodian”). Under this arrangement, the custodian is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral at least equal to 102% of the market value of the loaned

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

securities (105% for foreign equity securities), at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities must be maintained for the duration of the loan. Cash collateral is generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The Navigator Portfolio is a registered money market fund which invests in a variety of high quality U.S. dollar-denominated instruments.

If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower shall be required to deliver, by the close of business on the following business day, an additional amount of collateral so that the total amount of posted collateral equals at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of net income (income after the deduction of expenses and fees of the Navigator Portfolio) on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the custodian and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by U.S. Treasuries, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the custodian. The risks associated with lending portfolio securities include, but are not limited to, possible delays in receiving additional collateral or in the recovery of the loaned securities, possible loss of rights in the collateral should the borrower fail financially, as well as risk of loss in the value of the collateral or the value of the investments made with the collateral. Net interest income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2011 is disclosed in the footnotes to the Statement of Operations. Any outstanding loans by the Portfolio at December 31, 2011 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

Foreign Currency Translation - The books and records of the Portfolio are maintained in U.S. dollars. The values of securities, currencies and other assets and liabilities denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars are translated into U.S. dollars based upon foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period. Purchases and sales of investment securities, income and expenses are translated on the respective dates of such transactions. Since the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, it is not practical to isolate that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates from that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities. Such fluctuations are included in the net realized and unrealized gain or loss on investments.

Net realized foreign exchange gains or losses arise from activity in forward foreign currency exchange contracts, sales of foreign currency, currency gains or losses realized between the trade and settlement dates on securities transactions, and the difference between the amounts of dividends, interest, and foreign withholding taxes recorded by the Portfolio and the U.S. dollar equivalent of the amounts actually received or paid by the Portfolio. Gains and losses attributable to foreign currency exchange rates on sales of securities are recorded as Net realized gains and losses on investments. Net unrealized foreign exchange gains and losses arise from changes in the value of assets and liabilities, other than investment securities, resulting from changes in foreign exchange rates.

Directed Brokerage Agreement - The Trust has entered into a directed brokerage arrangement with State Street Global Markets (“SSGM”). Under this arrangement, the Portfolio directs certain trades to SSGM in return for a recapture credit. SSGM issues a cash rebate to the Portfolio. Amounts paid to the Portfolio are shown separately as broker commission recapture on the Statement of Operations of the Portfolio. Additionally, these amounts have been excluded from the calculation of the ratio of net expenses to average net assets presented in the Financial Highlights for each share class.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with CBRE Clarion Securities LLC (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year  ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$8,828,978		0.70	%	First $200 Million
		0.65	%	$200 Million to $750 Million
		0.55	%	Over $750 Million

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Distribution Agreements and Plans - The Trust has distribution agreements with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A, Class B and Class E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B and Class E distribution plans provide that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% and 0.25%, respectively, of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B and Class E Shares. However, under the Class B and Class E distribution agreements, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B and Class E distribution plans are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% and 0.15% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares, respectively. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B and Class E distribution plans and distribution agreements, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B and Class E Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$—	$	626,784,671	$	—	$	441,949,659

5. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk - continued

may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

7. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gains				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$54,868,818	$	100,350,807	$	—	$	—	$	54,868,818	$	100,350,807

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards			Total
$34,707,247	$	—	$	25,107,393	$	(509,839,743	)	$	(450,025,103	)

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses.

As of December 31, 2011, the post-enactment accumulated capital losses were $0 and the pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards and expiration dates were as follows:

Expiring 12/31/2016	Expiring 12/31/2017		Expiring 12/31/2018		Total
$190,809,855	$	231,334,681	$	87,695,207	$	509,839,743

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements - continued

inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of the Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio and Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of the Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statement of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio of the Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 28, 2012

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the one- year period ended June 30, 2011, and underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the three- and five- year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the FTSE EPRA/NAREIT Developed Index, for the one-, three- and five- year periods ended September 30, 2011. The Board took into account that the Portfolio’s previous Sub-Adviser was replaced on April 28, 2008. The Board also took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance, including the Portfolio’s improved performance over the one- year period. The Board also took into account the peer group used for comparative purposes. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s performance was being reasonably addressed and/or monitored.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the Expense Group median, the Expense Universe median and the Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were below the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules

25

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

With respect to the Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee and sub-advisory fee each contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board further considered that the Portfolio’s management fees were below the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

26

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio

Managed by Dreman Value Management, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A and B shares of the Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio returned -10.12% and -10.36%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Russell 2000 Value Index¹, returned -5.50%.

Market Environment / Conditions

It was another roller coaster of a ride for equity investors in 2011. The first half of the year started out strong with equities continuing the 2010 rally. European debt concerns coupled with high U.S. unemployment, however, caused a mid-summer decline in equities. Stocks sold off through the summer as investors feared a double dip in the U.S. coupled with continued concern over Europe’s sovereign debt. The market ultimately hit the low for the year in October with valuations and investor sentiment washed out. The valuation-driven fourth quarter rally in U.S. equities was led by the Industrials and Consumer Discretionary sectors, trumping Utilities and Consumer Staples, the safe havens of the third quarter. For the year, growth trumped value and large caps outpaced small caps as measured by the Russell Indexes.

Portfolio Review / Year-End Positioning

For 2011 the Portfolio trailed the benchmark as our stock selection detracted from performance. At the sector level the Portfolio lagged in Consumer Staples, Financials, Industrials, and Health Care. Energy, Information Technology, and Utilities were the Portfolio’s strongest sectors.

The Portfolio struggled in Consumer Staples with Central European Distributors as a notable detractor. The company, a manufacturer and distributor of distilled spirits in Poland and Russia, fell 75% during the year, due to a production problem, increased marketing costs, and a weakening European economy. We decided to sell the position during the third quarter of 2011 given the political turmoil in Europe and the financing impact that this would potentially have on the company’s leveraged balance sheet. While this was a difficult decision to make we believed that the market was providing us with better opportunities with companies trading at similar valuations, but with better balance sheets and earnings prospects. Chiquita Brands International was also weak during the year due to softer revenues from its European operations, which is approximately 17% of its revenue. We sold the stock as we became concerned over its elevated valuation compared to its peers and itself historically. Offsetting some of this volatility was Corn Products, a manufacturer and supplier of high fructose corn syrup, up 16% for the year. The company continues to see volume improvements and has effectively implemented price increases with the rise in raw material (corn) costs.

The Financials sector was a challenge for the Portfolio in 2011. Concerns over the European debt crisis and slow economic growth in the U.S. pushed several of our bank stocks lower in 2011, including: BancorpSouth, down 30%; Associated Bancorp, down 26%; FirstMerit, down 10%; and Wintrust, down 14%. These moves, in our opinion, were unwarranted. These banks have taken several steps to improve their balance sheets and loan portfolios, have either repaid Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds or never applied to receive TARP, and have valuations that are at or near multi-year lows. In addition, the operating environment is beginning to improve as consumers have started to deleverage. The third quarter of 2011 showed positive loan growth for the first time since 2008, led by commercial and industrial loans. Finally, many banks have excess capital and are looking to put the capital to use either through increased dividends, share buybacks, and/or loan growth. These favorable trends led us to increase our bank exposure significantly throughout the year, especially in the third quarter when the market created what we believed to be an excellent entry point. We started the year with just a 3% position in commercial banks versus the Russell 2000 Value Index weight of 11% and ended the year at 10% versus 11% for the benchmark. In the REIT space, Pennsylvania Real Estate fell 24% in 2011 as investors grew concerned over the impact a slowing economy would have on occupancy rates and rent at strip malls. We continued to hold the stock as it offered an attractive 7.7% yield and traded at 0.7x tangible book value. Hospitability Properties Trust, a hotel REIT posted a 7% gain for the year as its 8% dividend yield and better than expected revenue per available room (RevPAR) provided valuation support for the stock. We finished the year with a 25.7% weight in Financials versus the benchmark weight of 36.8%.

Stock selection in the Health Care sector also detracted from the Portfolio for the year. Amedisys Inc., a home hospice service provider, was down 67% for the year over concerns of the continuing SEC investigation into the company’s Medicare reimbursement process. We decided to sell our position as this situation remained opaque. In addition, the new reimbursement requirements caused fundamental issues with the company’s ability to raise new business as revenue growth unexpectedly slowed in the fourth quarter. Alere Corp, a manufacturer of rapid diagnostics tests, was down 36% in 2011 as it missed earnings expectations in the first half of the year due to margin pressures. Offsetting some of this was Health Spring, the Portfolio’s largest gainer for the year, up 105%. The managed care operator was acquired by Cigna in October for a 37% premium. We ended the year with a slight overweight in the Health Care sector.

The Portfolio’s best performing sector from an absolute basis was Utilities, which posted an average return of 19% for the year. The steady dividends provided a hiding place for investors during the market sell-off. All of our holdings in this sector advanced during 2011 including: Vectren Corp., up 25%; Portland General Electric, up 21%; and NV Energy, up 20%. Throughout the year we sold into strength and redeployed the cash into other areas in the Portfolio as opportunities presented themselves including Financials, Information Technology, and Industrials.

Information Technology was also a strong sector for the Portfolio in 2011. CACI International, which provides IT solutions for defense, intelligence, and homeland security, was up 5% for the year on better than expected earnings despite government budget concerns. At period

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio

Managed by Dreman Value Management, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

end, the company continues to trade at an attractive valuation and remains a holding in the Portfolio. JDA Software was another winner for the Portfolio, up 16% for the year. The company, which provides supply chain and optimization software to retailers, exceeded analyst expectations on license revenue and late in the year settled a legal battle with Dilliards. Finally, NCR Corp., a manufacturer of ATM machines, was up 7% for the year as earnings beat analyst expectations on strong demand for its products. We remained overweight in the Information Technology sector at year end.

Mark J. Roach

Lead Portfolio Manager

E. Clifton Hoover, Jr.

David N. Dreman

Portfolio Managers

Mario Tufano

Associate Portfolio Manager

Dreman Value Management, LLC

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Allied World Assurance Co. Holdings, Ltd.		1.3
Ryder System, Inc.		1.3
Allete, Inc.		1.2
SPX Corp.		1.2
EMCOR Group, Inc.		1.2
Fulton Financial Corp.		1.2
Aspen Insurance Holdings, Ltd.		1.2
Helen of Troy, Ltd.		1.2
CBL & Associates Properties, Inc.		1.2
Jarden Corp.		1.2

Top Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Financials		25.6
Industrials		20.9
Cyclical		11.3
Technology		10.4
Non-Cyclical		8.1
Utilities		7.5
Basic Materials		6.4
Energy		4.6
Communications		3.6
Cash & Cash Equivalents		1.6

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio

Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio managed by

Dreman Value Management, LLC vs. Russell 2000 Value Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		5 Year		Since Inception3
Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio—Class A		-10.12%		0.54%		5.72%
Class B		-10.36%		—		0.94%
Russell 2000 Value Index1		-5.50%		-1.87%		3.91%

The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other class of shares because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹The Russell 2000 Value Index is an unmanaged measure of performance of those Russell 2000 companies that have lower price-to-book ratios and lower forecasted growth values.

²“Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividend and capital gains distributions.

³ Inception of Class A shares is 5/2/2005. Inception of Class B shares is 4/28/2008. Index returns are based on an inception date of 5/2/2005.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A
Actual		0.86%	$	1,000.00	$	877.20	$	4.07
Hypothetical*		0.86%		1,000.00		1,020.86		4.38
Class B
Actual		1.11%	$	1,000.00	$	875.90	$	5.25
Hypothetical*		1.11%		1,000.00		1,019.60		5.65

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—98.2% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—3.2%
Alliant Techsystems, Inc.		56,500	$	3,229,540
Curtiss-Wright Corp.		105,309		3,720,567
Esterline Technologies Corp.*		60,698		3,397,267
				10,347,374
Auto Components—2.0%
American Axle & Manufacturing Holdings, Inc.* (a)		301,625		2,983,071
Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. (a)		242,936		3,403,534
				6,386,605
Capital Markets—1.0%
Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc. - Class A		125,365		3,105,291
Chemicals—3.4%
Cabot Corp.		70,846		2,276,990
H.B. Fuller Co.		53,263		1,230,908
Huntsman Corp.		162,600		1,626,000
Olin Corp. (a)		175,650		3,451,523
OM Group, Inc.*		107,675		2,410,843
				10,996,264
Commercial Banks—10.7%
Associated Banc-Corp.		330,475		3,691,406
BancorpSouth, Inc. (a)		201,485		2,220,365
Bank of Hawaii Corp. (a)		83,403		3,710,599
Chemical Financial Corp. (a)		25,725		548,457
City National Corp. (a)		23,150		1,022,767
East West Bancorp, Inc.		101,200		1,998,700
FirstMerit Corp.		237,458		3,592,740
Fulton Financial Corp. (a)		392,450		3,849,934
Glacier Bancorp, Inc. (a)		34,647		416,803
Hancock Holding Co. (a)		107,700		3,443,169
Independent Bank Corp./MA (a)		16,425		448,238
International Bancshares Corp. (a)		27,589		505,844
Lakeland Financial Corp.		20,225		523,221
NBT Bancorp Inc. (a)		23,153		512,376
Prosperity Bancshares, Inc. (a)		53,697		2,166,674
TCF Financial Corp. (a)		81,600		842,112
Umpqua Holdings Corp. (a)		39,650		491,264
Webster Financial Corp. (a)		66,718		1,360,380
WesBanco, Inc.		21,152		411,829
Wintrust Financial Corp. (a)		106,299		2,981,687
				34,738,565
Commercial Services & Supplies—2.0%
Brink’s Co. (The)		133,850		3,597,888
Geo Group, Inc. (The)*		164,558		2,756,347
				6,354,235

Security Description	Shares		Value
Communications Equipment—2.2%
Arris Group, Inc.*		329,508	$	3,565,277
Plantronics, Inc. (a)		103,650		3,694,086
				7,259,363
Computers & Peripherals—3.5%
Lexmark International, Inc. - Class A		93,350		3,087,085
NCR Corp.*		179,092		2,947,854
QLogic Corp.*		217,271		3,259,065
Synaptics, Inc.* (a)		70,723		2,132,298
				11,426,302
Construction & Engineering—2.0%
EMCOR Group, Inc.		143,720		3,853,133
Tutor Perini Corp.* (a)		223,123		2,753,338
				6,606,471
Electric Utilities—4.4%
Allete, Inc. (a)		95,050		3,990,199
IDACORP, Inc.		76,095		3,227,189
NV Energy, Inc.		205,682		3,362,901
Portland General Electric Co.		146,598		3,707,463
				14,287,752
Electrical Equipment—2.0%
EnerSys*		125,450		3,257,936
General Cable Corp.* (a)		127,983		3,200,855
				6,458,791
Energy Equipment & Services—2.0%
Atwood Oceanics, Inc.* (a)		87,988		3,501,043
Superior Energy Services, Inc.*		108,455		3,084,460
				6,585,503
Food Products—1.1%
Corn Products International, Inc.		68,650		3,610,304
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—2.0%
STERIS Corp. (a)		104,375		3,112,462
Teleflex, Inc. (a)		53,900		3,303,531
				6,415,993
Health Care Providers & Services—2.9%
Healthspring, Inc.* (a)		58,111		3,169,374
LifePoint Hospitals, Inc.* (a)		85,515		3,176,882
Owens & Minor, Inc. (a)		108,862		3,025,275
				9,371,531
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—3.9%
Brinker International, Inc. (a)		139,275		3,726,999

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—(Continued)
International Speedway Corp. - Class A		127,780	$	3,239,223
LIFE TIME FITNESS, Inc.* (a)		71,246		3,330,750
Sonic Corp.*		370,645		2,494,441
				12,791,413
Household Durables—2.3%
Helen of Troy, Ltd.*		124,850		3,832,895
Jarden Corp.		125,754		3,757,530
				7,590,425
Industrial Conglomerates—1.1%
Carlisle Cos., Inc.		82,111		3,637,517
Insurance—5.5%
Allied World Assurance Co. Holdings, Ltd.		65,482		4,120,782
Aspen Insurance Holdings, Ltd.		145,250		3,849,125
Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. (The)		87,450		3,056,378
Platinum Underwriters Holdings, Ltd. (a)		101,100		3,448,521
Protective Life Corp.		146,755		3,310,793
				17,785,599
Internet Software & Services—1.0%
j2 Global, Inc.(a)		120,058		3,378,432
IT Services—2.1%
CACI International, Inc. - Class A* (a)		56,800		3,176,256
DST Systems, Inc.		79,425		3,615,426
				6,791,682
Leisure Equipment & Products—0.6%
JAKKS Pacific, Inc. (a)		139,740		1,971,731
Life Sciences Tools & Services—1.9%
Charles River Laboratories International, Inc.*		106,700		2,916,111
PerkinElmer, Inc.		161,425		3,228,500
				6,144,611
Machinery—5.3%
Barnes Group, Inc. (a)		132,555		3,195,901
Briggs & Stratton Corp. (a)		226,890		3,514,526
Harsco Corp.		155,875		3,207,908
ITT Corp.		163,625		3,162,871
SPX Corp.		65,725		3,961,246
				17,042,452
Marine—0.7%
Diana Shipping, Inc.*		322,036		2,408,829
Media—1.1%
Meredith Corp. (a)		112,100	$	3,660,065
Metals & Mining—4.0%
AuRico Gold, Inc.* (a)		338,588		2,712,090
Coeur d’Alene Mines Corp.*		150,035		3,621,845
Minefinders Corp., Ltd.*		103,639		1,098,573
Thompson Creek Metals Co., Inc.*		324,100		2,255,736
Worthington Industries, Inc. (a)		203,676		3,336,213
				13,024,457
Multi-Utilities—2.1%
TECO Energy, Inc.		169,375		3,241,837
Vectren Corp.		113,955		3,444,860
				6,686,697
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—3.6%
Energen Corp.		65,939		3,296,950
James River Coal Co.* (a)		188,142		1,301,943
Tesoro Corp.*		145,836		3,406,729
W&T Offshore, Inc. (a)		173,903		3,688,482
				11,694,104
Real Estate Investment Trusts—7.3%
Brandywine Realty Trust (a)		368,575		3,501,462
CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. (a)		243,550		3,823,735
CommonWealth REIT		167,218		2,782,508
Duke Realty Corp. (a)		297,542		3,585,381
Hospitality Properties Trust		143,862		3,305,949
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc.		192,000		3,715,200
Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust		293,100		3,059,964
				23,774,199
Road & Rail—1.3%
Ryder System, Inc.		76,750		4,078,495
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—2.7%
Amkor Technology, Inc.* (a)		570,015		2,485,265
Microsemi Corp.*		183,600		3,075,300
PMC-Sierra, Inc.*		562,925		3,101,717
				8,662,282
Software—1.3%
JDA Software Group, Inc.*		105,269		3,409,663
Websense, Inc.* (a)		36,783		688,946
				4,098,609
Specialty Retail—0.9%
Ascena Retail Group, Inc.*		97,835		2,907,656

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares/Par Amount		Value
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—2.9%
Hanesbrands, Inc.*		143,975	$	3,147,293
Jones Group, Inc. (The)		291,441		3,074,703
Wolverine World Wide, Inc.		91,125		3,247,695
				9,469,691
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance—1.1%
Washington Federal, Inc.		253,375		3,544,716
Trading Companies & Distributors—1.1%
Aircastle, Ltd. (a)		291,573		3,708,809
Total Common Stocks (Cost $313,901,051)				318,802,815
Short-Term Investments—23.4%
Mutual Funds—21.8%
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (b)		70,576,564		70,576,564
Repurchase Agreement—1.6%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $5,182,006 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $5,295,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. at 0.625% due 12/23/13 with a value of $5,288,381.	$	5,182,000		5,182,000
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $75,758,564)				75,758,564
Total Investments—121.6% (Cost $389,659,615#)				394,561,379
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(21.6)%				(70,004,916	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	324,556,463

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $393,313,519. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $27,326,670 and $(26,078,810), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $1,247,860 for federal income tax purposes.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities loaned was $68,293,010 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $70,576,564. The cash collateral is invested in a money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian.

(b) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities lending transactions.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Total Common Stocks*	$	318,802,815	$	—	$	—	$	318,802,815
Short-Term Investments
Mutual Funds		70,576,564		—		—		70,576,564
Repurchase Agreement		—		5,182,000		—		5,182,000
Total Short-Term Investments		70,576,564		5,182,000		—		75,758,564
Total Investments	$	389,379,379	$	5,182,000	$	—	$	394,561,379

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)(b)	$	389,379,379
Repurchase Agreement		5,182,000
Cash		311
Receivable for investments sold		260,510
Receivable for shares sold		312,581
Dividends receivable		297,588
Total assets		395,432,369
Liabilities
Payables for:
Shares redeemed		12,460
Collateral for securities loaned		70,576,564
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		211,453
Distribution and service fees - Class B		4,587
Administration fees		1,574
Custodian and accounting fees		5,346
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		38,855
Total liabilities		70,875,906
Net Assets	$	324,556,463
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	333,067,846
Accumulated net realized loss		(16,862,253	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments		4,901,764
Undistributed net investment income		3,449,106
Net Assets	$	324,556,463
Net Assets
Class A	$	302,753,702
Class B		21,802,761
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		23,039,218
Class B		1,669,672
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	13.14
Class B		13.06

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreement, was $384,477,615.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $68,293,010.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	5,511,577
Interest (b)		166,288
Total investment income		5,677,865
Expenses
Management fees		2,292,790
Administration fees		17,753
Custodian and accounting fees		47,096
Distribution and service fees - Class B		48,917
Audit and tax services		33,062
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Shareholder reporting		33,508
Insurance		1,918
Miscellaneous		5,484
Total expenses		2,549,238
Net investment income		3,128,627
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments
Net realized gain on investments		13,106,688
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments		(47,752,934	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments		(34,646,246	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(31,517,619	)

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $3,305.

(b) Includes net income on securities loaned of $165,258.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	3,128,627		$	3,177,588
Net realized gain on investments		13,106,688			22,283,212
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments		(47,752,934	)		19,597,242
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations		(31,517,619	)		45,058,042
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(4,296,842	)		(1,842,391	)
Class B		(281,690	)		(69,241	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(4,578,532	)		(1,911,632	)
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		85,869,530			15,017,161
Net Increase in Net Assets		49,773,379			58,163,571
Net assets at beginning of period		274,783,084			216,619,513
Net assets at end of period	$	324,556,463		$	274,783,084
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	3,449,106		$	3,278,196

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		17,710,273		$	265,127,755			3,104,189		$	40,376,538
Reinvestments		278,654			4,296,842			131,599			1,842,391
Redemptions		(12,354,706	)		(191,503,374	)		(2,554,983	)		(33,947,079	)
Net increase		5,634,221		$	77,921,223			680,805		$	8,271,850
Class B
Sales		734,353		$	10,246,335			610,379		$	7,918,746
Reinvestments		18,351			281,690			4,964			69,241
Redemptions		(184,685	)		(2,579,718	)		(96,100	)		(1,242,676	)
Net increase		568,019		$	7,948,307			519,243		$	6,745,311
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	85,869,530					$	15,017,161

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	14.85		$	12.52		$	9.80		$	13.57		$	13.77
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.15			0.18			0.11			0.14			0.12
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(1.62	)		2.26			2.70			(3.44	)		(0.25	)
Total from investment operations		(1.47	)		2.44			2.81			(3.30	)		(0.13	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.24	)		(0.11	)		(0.09	)		(0.10	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.37	)		(0.07	)
Total distributions		(0.24	)		(0.11	)		(0.09	)		(0.47	)		(0.07	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	13.14		$	14.85		$	12.52		$	9.80		$	13.57
Total Return (%)		(10.12	)		19.53			29.09			(25.22	)		(0.97	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.85			0.87			0.89			0.86			0.95	(b)
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)		0.85			0.87			0.89			0.86			0.92
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.08			1.39			1.07			1.17			0.89
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		46.9			41.1			59.9			73.6			69.6
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	302.8		$	258.5		$	209.4		$	174.5		$	225.2

	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008(d)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	14.78		$	12.48		$	9.79		$	13.02
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.12			0.16			0.09			0.11
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(1.62	)		2.24			2.69			(3.34	)
Total from investment operations		(1.50	)		2.40			2.78			(3.23	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.22	)		(0.10	)		(0.09	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			0.00
Total distributions		(0.22	)		(0.10	)		(0.09	)		0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	13.06		$	14.78		$	12.48		$	9.79
Total Return (%)		(10.36	)		19.25			28.77			(24.81	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.10			1.12			1.14			1.16	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)		1.10			1.12			1.14			1.16	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.85			1.21			0.79			1.50	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		46.9			41.1			59.9			73.6
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	21.8		$	16.3		$	7.3		$	0.8

* Annualized.

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Excludes effect of deferred expense reimbursement. See Note 3 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

(c) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

(d) Commencement of operations was 4/28/2008.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“Met Life”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A and B Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to foreign currency transactions, passive foreign investment companies (PFICs), deferred trustees’ compensation, capital loss carryforwards, Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Securities Lending - The Portfolio may lend its portfolio securities to certain qualified brokers who borrow securities in order to complete certain securities transactions. By lending its portfolio securities, the Portfolio attempts to increase its net investment income through the receipt of income on the loaned securities. Any gain or loss in the market price of the loaned securities that might occur and any interest earned or dividends declared during the term of the loan would accrue to the account of the Portfolio.

The Trust has entered into a securities lending arrangement with the custodian, State Street Bank and Trust Company (the “custodian”). Under this arrangement, the custodian is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral at least equal to 102% of the market value of the loaned securities (105% for foreign equity securities), at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities must be maintained for the duration of the loan. Cash collateral is generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The Navigator Portfolio is a registered money market fund which invests in a variety of high quality U.S. dollar-denominated instruments. If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower shall be required to deliver, by the close of business on the following business day, an additional amount of collateral so that the total amount of posted collateral equals at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of net income (income after the deduction of expenses and fees of the Navigator Portfolio) on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the custodian and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by U.S. Treasuries, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the custodian. The risks associated with lending portfolio securities include, but are not limited to, possible delays in receiving additional collateral or in the recovery of the loaned securities, possible loss of rights in the collateral should the borrower fail financially, as well as risk of loss in the value of the collateral or the value of the investments made with the collateral. Net interest income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2011 is disclosed in the footnotes to the Statement of Operations. Any outstanding loans by the Portfolio at December 31, 2011 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with Dreman Value Management, LLC (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by  the Adviser for the year ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$2,292,790		0.800	%	First $100 Million
		0.775	%	$100 Million to $500 Million
		0.750	%	$500 Million to $1 Billion
		0.725	%	Over $1 Billion

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Management Fee Waiver - Effective May 1, 2011, the Adviser contractually agreed to waive a portion of the management fee through April 30, 2012. This waiver reduced the management fee to the annual rate of: 0.725% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets in excess of $400 million up to $1.5 billion and 0.675% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets in excess $1.5 billion. Amounts waived, if applicable, for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as a management fee waiver in the Statement of Operations.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Distribution Agreement and Plan - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A and Class B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B distribution plan provides that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B Shares. However, under the Class B distribution agreement, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B distribution plan are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B distribution plan and distribution agreement, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. as designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$—	$	227,237,441	$	—	$	135,126,245

5. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

7. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income				Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2011		2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$	4,578,532	$	1,911,632	$	—	$	—	$	4,578,532	$	1,911,632

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards			Total
$3,715,602	$	—	$	1,247,860	$	(13,449,778	)	$	(8,486,316	)

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses.

As of December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and the pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards expiring on December 31, 2017 were $13,449,778.

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 23, 2012

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5  Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5  Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio underperformed the median of its Performance Universe for the one- and three- year periods ended June 30, 2011 and outperformed the median of its Performance Universe for the five- year period ended June 30, 2011. The Board also considered that the Portfolio underperformed its Lipper Index for the one- year period ended June 30, 2011 and outperformed its Lipper Index for the three- and five- year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Russell 2000 Value Index, for the one- year period ended September 30, 2011, and outperformed its benchmark for the three- and five- year periods ended September 30, 2011. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s moderate underperformance was being reasonably addressed and/or monitored.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the Expense Group median, the Expense Universe median and the Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were below the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Adviser had reduced the Portfolio’s sub-advisory fee schedule through the implementation of additional breakpoints, effective January 1, 2011. The Board also noted that effective January 1, 2011, the Adviser began waiving an additional portion of its advisory fee in order for shareholders to benefit from the additional breakpoints being implemented at the sub-advisory fee level. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

With respect to the Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee and sub-advisory fee each contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board further considered that the Portfolio’s management fees were below the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

24

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Managed by Goldman Sachs Asset Management, L.P.

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A and B shares of the Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio returned -6.13% and -6.29%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Russell Midcap Value Index¹, returned -1.38%.

Market Environment / Conditions

In the first quarter, United States (“U.S.”) equities continued their positive momentum from 2010, posting the best first quarter in more than a decade as the S&P 500 Index returned 5.9%. While all sectors made gains, energy stocks dominated returns as the benchmark Brent Crude oil price reached almost $120/barrel on supply disruption fears stemming from escalating unrest across North Africa and the Middle East. The Industrials sector also performed well. However, the rising price of oil and other commodities weighed on the Utilities and Consumer Staples sectors, which face higher input costs. Strong returns from U.S. equities over the quarter reflected optimism on improving trends in labor, housing, manufacturing and consumer confidence, which outweighed less decisive macroeconomic data and rising gasoline prices in March. The U.S. market also benefited from investors shifting assets toward developed markets amidst concerns of high inflation and geopolitical unrest in many emerging markets countries.

U.S. equity markets finished the second quarter modestly higher, despite losing most of their gains for the year by mid-June before recovering. The S&P 500 Index rose 0.10% in the second quarter, lifting year-to-date returns to 6.02%. Markets were aided in large part by a four day rally at the end of the quarter on the heels of better-than-expected U.S. manufacturing activity, a rebound in automobile sales and a short-term resolution of the sovereign debt crisis in Greece. Sector returns were mixed for the quarter, with more defensive sectors including Healthcare and Utilities posting the largest gains, while Financials and Energy lagged the broader market. WTI Crude oil prices fell from a high of nearly $115 a barrel in early May to a low of $90.61 at the end of June, as a mix of uncertain growth in the U.S. and concerns about China’s economy lowered expectations for oil demand. While U.S. home construction rose modestly in May, housing and employment continued to remain key weak spots in the economy. In a reversal from the first quarter, large and mid-cap stocks outperformed small-cap stocks for the quarter, while the Russell 1000 Growth Index outperformed the Russell 1000 Value Index.

In the third quarter, increasing concern over the economy and sovereign debt dominated U.S. equity performance. The S&P 500 Index declined 7.0% in September and closed the volatile third quarter down 13.9%. Year-to-date returns (through September 30, 2011) slid to -8.7%, as recent gloomier domestic and global economic outlooks overshadowed optimism earlier in the year. In August, following weeks of political brinksmanship in the U.S. over raising the debt ceiling to avoid default, Standard & Poor’s downgraded U.S. debt from AAA for the first time in the history of its ratings. This sent a shock throughout the financial markets and particularly affected stocks in the Financials sector. Toward the end of September, markets were further shaken by the Federal Reserve Board’s announcement of a plan for additional monetary easing by attempting to “twist” the yield curve, on the grounds of general weakness in the labor market and lackluster consumer spending growth. In addition, the prospect of contagion from a potential Greek default and the lack of agreement on a solution among European leaders weighed on global equity markets. All sectors except for Utilities declined during the quarter, while the similarly defensive Consumer Staples sector also fared significantly better. Expectations of weaker demand from a slowing global economy knocked down many commodity prices, including oil, which had run up earlier in the year. As a result, the Materials and Energy sectors suffered sharp declines during the quarter.

In the fourth quarter, despite significant volatility during the year, U.S. equity markets ended 2011 almost flat. The S&P 500 Index returned 2.1%, with the help of dividends, while price returns alone were virtually 0%, the smallest percentage change since 1947. Reflecting optimism that the domestic economy was improving, the S&P 500 Index started the year with the best first quarter in more than a decade and ended with a fourth quarter gain of 11.8%, after adding 1.0% in December. However, the sharp decline in the third quarter mostly offset these gains. U.S. equities rallied back sharply in October following a preliminary European plan and a relatively strong third quarter Gross Domestic Product growth number. All sectors made gains in the fourth quarter, led by Energy stocks, which rallied on rising oil prices and cyclical sectors generally outperformed defensive ones. For the full year, sector performance widely varied. Financial stocks bore the brunt of the fallout from debt woes in the U.S. and Europe, including increased regulation. Defensive sectors, such as Utilities, Consumer Staples and Healthcare, significantly outperformed.

Portfolio Review / Year-End Positioning

For the year, Materials was the bottom performing sector in the Portfolio, largely driven by Stillwater Mining Co. Our holding in Stillwater was hurt by the ongoing fears of a global economic slowdown. While we originally bought the stock because we believed it would benefit from secular growth of autos in emerging markets, its shares declined in 2011 as palladium prices dropped. We sold out of the position as our outlook on the stock changed negatively. At the stock level, Sprint Nextel Corp. was the largest detractor within the Portfolio for the year. In an environment in which turnaround stocks underperformed, shares of Sprint Nextel fell on concerns over the near-term controversy around whether the company has sufficient liquidity to fund two large investments: the iPhone and Network Vision, both of which we feel should be two massive long-term drivers of value creation. In our view, the recent debt deal where they raised $4 billion will give them more than ample funds for these investments. Our long-term thesis remains intact and we continue to believe that improved competitive positioning (from the iPhone and new handsets), better pricing and improved network quality, will ultimately benefit the stock. We also feel that cost improvements and margin expansion—driven by shutting down iDEN (Integrated Digital Enhanced Network) and eliminating a significant portion of roaming charges—will drive significant cost savings and margin expansion as the company completes its upgrade to Network Vision.

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Managed by Goldman Sachs Asset Management, L.P.

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

On the positive side, during the year, the Portfolio benefited from strong security selection in Industrials. For the year, Kansas City Southern was a top performer within the sector, as pricing remained strong and rail volume growth outpaced the industry. The company has a unique position in Mexico and is benefiting from increased cross border activity and growth at the Port of Lazaro. Management has been focused on improving productivity, which drove higher operating ratios and both free cash flow and return on capital increased this year. For the year, our top performing stock in the Portfolio was a take-out: shares of Kinetic Concepts Inc. a producer of medical technology dealing with wound care. The company benefited from the announcement that it agreed to be acquired by a group of private-equity firms led by Apax Partners at a premium.

Through our ongoing zero-based approach, we have made changes within the Portfolio to address underperformance, with an increased focus on balancing resilient stocks that can weather a variety of market conditions, with those on the path to improving fundamentals. During the year, we initiated a position in the clothing and apparel retailer Macy’s, Inc. We feel that Macy’s should be well positioned to generate returns on their significant free cash flow and has a management team that is focused on returning value to shareholders. As a result of their consolidated and centralized operations makeover, Macy’s has been able to improve its inventory management system, which can now track both online and retail stores, enabling more efficient operations and the potential for margin improvement. We also started a position in Albemarle Corp., a quality, technology-based, global specialty chemicals company with significant barriers to entry. In our view, Albemarle benefits from structurally higher margins than most realize, in addition to secular growth driven by emerging market demand. The company has a strong track record of execution over the last decade, as well as strong free cash flow, balance sheet and capital allocation.

During the year, we also made some adjustments to our positioning by selling or reducing select Financials stocks exposed to increased regulations, a low rate environment and relatively weak capital markets. In other areas, true to our sell discipline, we eliminated stocks that approached our price targets in favor of other names with higher potential upside. As such, we sold out of the consumer and commercial foods company, ConAgra Foods, Inc., a relatively strong performer for the year. Similarly, we eliminated our position in DISH Network Corp. DISH Network was a top contributor for the year, as it continued to gain valuable spectrum assets in addition to reducing customer attrition rate, which surprised the market to the upside. We redeployed the proceeds into other names with better risk-reward profiles.

The Portfolio is positioned to favor companies with strong quality characteristics that are attractively valued and may be poised to grow despite a slower growth environment. This includes global franchises with increased exposure to developing market revenue streams, as well as secular growth stories where valuations are still compelling. In 2011, macro concerns and swings in sentiment overshadowed the strength of individual company fundamentals, resulting in a volatile year and a difficult one for active managers. While risks remain over strains in Europe, emerging market inflation, slowing global growth and political uncertainty, company fundamentals remain stronger than ever, as well-capitalized corporations have over $1 trillion on their balance sheets and are beginning to redeploy cash, signaling confidence in the economy.

As part of our rationale, we believe in select technology stocks that predominantly benefit from secular growth drivers. In 2011, the smartphone and tablet market expanded rapidly, presenting attractive opportunities for select semiconductor companies. In addition, we believe cloud computing, a term for anything that involves delivering hosted services over the Internet, should continue to grow as the need for increased technical integration across enterprise infrastructure should accelerate. Select companies are poised to benefit from this secular shift. Apart from technology stocks, we are positioned in several high quality media names within the Consumer Discretionary sector that we believe will benefit from increased advertising spending for the 2012 elections and Olympics. We maintain our discipline in finding companies with strong or improving fundamentals, led by quality management teams focused on creating shareholder value, and remain focused on the long-term outperformance of the Portfolio.

Sean Gallagher, Managing Director & Co-CIO—Value Equity

Andy Braun, Managing Director & Co-CIO—Value Equity

Dolores Bamford, CFA, Managing Director & Portfolio Manager—Value Equity

Goldman Sachs Asset Management, L.P.

* This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Managed by Goldman Sachs Asset Management, L.P.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Xcel Energy, Inc.		2.5
J.M. Smucker Co. (The)		2.1
PPL Corp.		2.1
Everest Reinsurance Group, Ltd.		1.8
EQT Corp.		1.7
Principal Financial Group, Inc.		1.7
Liberty Media Corp. - Interactive - Class A		1.7
Scripps Networks Interactive, Inc. - Class A		1.6
SCANA Corp.		1.6
Sempra Energy		1.5

Top Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Financials		29.2
Utilities		14.9
Industrials		11.0
Non-Cyclical		10.6
Cyclical		7.9
Technology		7.0
Communications		6.2
Energy		5.0
Cash & Cash Equivalents		4.7
Basic Materials		3.5

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio managed by

Goldman Sachs Asset Management, L.P. vs. Russell Midcap Value Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 year		5 year		Since Inception3
Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio—Class A		-6.13%		0.54%		6.54%
Class B		-6.29%		0.30%		6.29%
Russell Midcap Value Index1		-1.38%		0.04%		6.86%

The performance of Class B shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other class of shares because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹The Russell Midcap Value Index is an unmanaged measure of performance of those Russell Midcap companies (the 800 smallest companies in the Russell 1000 Index) with lower price-to-book ratios and higher forecasted growth values.

²“Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

³ Inception of the Class A and Class B shares is 5/1/2004. Index returns are based on an inception date of 5/1/2004.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A
Actual		0.76%	$	1,000.00	$	884.00	$	3.61
Hypothetical*		0.76%		1,000.00		1,021.37		3.87
Class B
Actual		1.01%	$	1,000.00	$	883.10	$	4.79
Hypothetical*		1.01%		1,000.00		1,020.11		5.14

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—96.2% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—3.0%
BE Aerospace, Inc.*		189,901	$	7,351,068
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. - Class A*		368,904		7,665,825
Textron, Inc. (a)		307,338		5,682,679
				20,699,572
Auto Components—2.0%
Lear Corp.		251,320		10,002,536
TRW Automotive Holdings Corp.*		118,074		3,849,212
				13,851,748
Beverages—0.5%
Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc.		138,351		3,566,689
Building Products—0.6%
Masco Corp. (a)		368,413		3,860,968
Capital Markets—1.6%
Invesco, Ltd.		328,794		6,605,471
Lazard, Ltd. - Class A		115,373		3,012,389
Legg Mason, Inc.		71,832		1,727,560
				11,345,420
Chemicals—2.6%
Albemarle Corp.		139,480		7,184,615
CF Industries Holdings, Inc.		22,533		3,266,834
Chemtura Corp.*		385,794		4,374,904
Cytec Industries, Inc.		77,821		3,474,708
				18,301,061
Commercial Banks—4.8%
CIT Group, Inc.*		174,780		6,094,579
Comerica, Inc.		187,643		4,841,189
Fifth Third Bancorp.		571,142		7,264,926
First Republic Bank*		115,546		3,536,863
M&T Bank Corp. (a)		79,092		6,037,883
SunTrust Banks, Inc.		332,771		5,890,047
				33,665,487
Commercial Services & Supplies—0.8%
Republic Services, Inc.		191,915		5,287,258
Communications Equipment—1.3%
Juniper Networks, Inc.*		188,134		3,839,815
Polycom, Inc.*		300,220		4,893,586
				8,733,401
Computers & Peripherals—0.9%
NetApp, Inc.*		174,190	$	6,317,871
Construction & Engineering—0.2%
Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V.		44,234		1,672,045
Consumer Finance—1.5%
SLM Corp.		761,966		10,210,344
Diversified Financial Services—1.2%
NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. (The)*		341,853		8,378,817
Electric Utilities—6.7%
Edison International		199,425		8,256,195
Great Plains Energy, Inc.		115,521		2,516,047
Northeast Utilities		176,596		6,369,818
NV Energy, Inc.		487,913		7,977,378
Pinnacle West Capital Corp.		144,145		6,944,906
PPL Corp.		483,791		14,233,131
				46,297,475
Electrical Equipment—1.4%
Cooper Industries plc		92,250		4,995,338
Rockwell Automation, Inc.		68,144		4,999,725
				9,995,063
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—0.7%
Amphenol Corp. - Class A		109,384		4,964,940
Energy Equipment & Services—1.2%
Cameron International Corp.*		167,661		8,247,245
Food Products—4.2%
Bunge, Ltd.		122,836		7,026,220
Corn Products International, Inc.		59,944		3,152,455
J.M. Smucker Co. (The)		189,901		14,844,561
Sara Lee Corp.		207,773		3,931,065
				28,954,301
Gas Utilities—0.3%
Questar Corp.		122,149		2,425,879
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—2.1%
Boston Scientific Corp.*		1,621,290		8,657,689
Hologic, Inc.*		345,142		6,043,436
				14,701,125
Health Care Providers & Services—1.7%
Aetna, Inc.		202,813		8,556,680
Patterson Cos., Inc. (a)		117,386		3,465,235
				12,021,915

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—1.0%
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.		141,346	$	6,780,368
Household Durables—0.9%
NVR, Inc.* (a)		8,983		6,162,338
Household Products—0.8%
Energizer Holdings, Inc.*		71,678		5,553,611
Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders—0.8%
AES Corp. (The)*		295,801		3,502,284
GenOn Energy, Inc.*		783,716		2,045,499
				5,547,783
Insurance—9.1%
Everest Reinsurance Group, Ltd.		150,379		12,645,370
Genworth Financial, Inc. - Class A*		425,660		2,788,073
Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (The)		171,049		2,779,546
Lincoln National Corp.		108,691		2,110,779
Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.		157,351		4,975,439
PartnerRe, Ltd.		96,423		6,191,321
Principal Financial Group, Inc.		484,368		11,915,453
W.R. Berkley Corp.		258,979		8,906,288
Willis Group Holdings plc		80,008		3,104,310
XL Group plc		407,297		8,052,262
				63,468,841
Internet & Catalog Retail—1.7%
Liberty Media Corp. - Interactive - Class A*		717,927		11,641,186
Life Sciences Tools & Services—1.1%
Life Technologies Corp.*		200,162		7,788,303
Machinery—3.0%
Dover Corp.		48,408		2,810,084
Eaton Corp.		153,619		6,687,035
Gardner Denver, Inc.		21,159		1,630,513
Parker Hannifin Corp.		60,902		4,643,778
Pentair, Inc. (a)		142,804		4,753,945
				20,525,355
Media—2.6%
Liberty Global, Inc. - Class A*		169,354		6,948,594
Scripps Networks Interactive, Inc. - Class A		262,297		11,126,639
				18,075,233
Metals & Mining—0.9%
Allegheny Technologies, Inc.		71,532	$	3,419,230
Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co.		54,790		2,667,725
				6,086,955
Multi-Utilities—6.7%
CMS Energy Corp.		252,057		5,565,419
OGE Energy Corp.		34,268		1,943,338
SCANA Corp. (a)		241,256		10,870,995
Sempra Energy		192,061		10,563,355
Xcel Energy, Inc.		623,106		17,222,650
				46,165,757
Multiline Retail—1.4%
Macy’s, Inc.		295,211		9,499,890
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—4.4%
Energen Corp.		131,969		6,598,450
EQT Corp.		217,934		11,940,604
Pioneer Natural Resources Co.		113,459		10,152,312
Range Resources Corp.		33,678		2,086,015
				30,777,381
Pharmaceuticals—1.1%
Warner Chilcott plc - Class A*		501,463		7,587,135
Real Estate Investment Trusts—11.2%
Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc.		93,379		6,440,350
AvalonBay Communities, Inc.		75,704		9,886,942
Camden Property Trust		80,958		5,038,826
Douglas Emmett, Inc. (a)		280,287		5,112,435
Essex Property Trust, Inc. (a)		19,637		2,759,195
Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc. (a)		691,366		10,211,476
Kimco Realty Corp.		409,409		6,648,802
Liberty Property Trust (a)		160,198		4,946,914
MFA Financial, Inc.		816,953		5,489,924
Tanger Factory Outlet Centers, Inc. (a)		210,129		6,160,982
Taubman Centers, Inc.		96,767		6,009,231
Ventas, Inc.		161,131		8,883,152
				77,588,229
Road & Rail—0.6%
Kansas City Southern*		62,988		4,283,814
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—3.3%
Cavium, Inc.* (a)		136,043		3,867,703
Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.		238,605		6,213,274
NVIDIA Corp.*		412,993		5,724,083
Xilinx, Inc.		213,467		6,843,752
				22,648,812

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares/Par Amount		Value
Software—2.9%
Adobe Systems, Inc.*		194,467	$	5,497,582
BMC Software, Inc.*		100,743		3,302,355
Electronic Arts, Inc.*		149,643		3,082,646
Parametric Technology Corp.*		271,891		4,964,730
QLIK Technologies, Inc.*		132,263		3,200,765
				20,048,078
Specialty Retail—1.5%
PetSmart, Inc.		108,009		5,539,782
Ross Stores, Inc.		102,118		4,853,668
				10,393,450
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—1.2%
PVH Corp.		118,467		8,350,739
Wireless Telecommunication Services—0.7%
Sprint Nextel Corp.*		2,121,846		4,965,120
Total Common Stocks (Cost $657,980,678)				667,437,002
Short-Term Investments—9.4%
Mutual Funds—4.6%
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (b)		32,035,040		32,035,040
Repurchase Agreement—4.8%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $33,205,037 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $32,645,000 U.S. Treasury Notes at 1.750% due 01/31/14 with a value of $33,869,188	$	33,205,000		33,205,000
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $65,240,040)				65,240,040
Total Investments—105.6% (Cost $723,220,718#)				732,677,042
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(5.6)%				(38,604,611	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	694,072,431

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $726,077,663. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $44,508,730 and $(37,909,351), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $6,599,379 for federal income tax purposes.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities loaned was $31,367,793 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $32,035,040 and non-cash collateral with a value of $235,862. The cash collateral is invested in a money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The non-cash collateral received consists primarily of government securities and bank letters of credit, and are held for the benefit of the Portfolio at the Portfolio’s custodian. The Portfolio cannot repledge or resell this collateral. As such, this collateral is excluded from the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

(b) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities lending transactions.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Total Common Stocks*	$	667,437,002	$	—	$	—	$	667,437,002
Short-Term Investments
Mutual Funds		32,035,040		—		—		32,035,040
Repurchase Agreement		—		33,205,000		—		33,205,000
Total Short-Term Investments		32,035,040		33,205,000		—		65,240,040
Total Investments	$	699,472,042	$	33,205,000	$	—	$	732,677,042

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)(b)	$	699,472,042
Repurchase Agreement		33,205,000
Receivable for investments sold		787,400
Receivable for shares sold		422,074
Dividends receivable		1,508,884
Total assets		735,395,400
Liabilities
Due to custodian		43,200
Payables for:
Investments purchased		8,659,453
Shares redeemed		60,800
Collateral for securities loaned		32,035,040
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		415,412
Distribution and service fees - Class B		34,749
Administration fees		3,045
Custodian and accounting fees		7,844
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		38,359
Total liabilities		41,322,969
Net Assets	$	694,072,431
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	687,306,322
Accumulated net realized loss		(8,675,474	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments		9,456,324
Undistributed net investment income		5,985,259
Net Assets	$	694,072,431
Net Assets
Class A	$	529,487,926
Class B		164,584,505
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		44,256,883
Class B		13,786,161
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	11.96
Class B		11.94

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreement, was $690,015,718.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $31,367,793.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	11,453,350
Interest (b)		192,263
Total investment income		11,645,613
Expenses
Management fees		4,680,869
Administration fees		35,028
Custodian and accounting fees		87,174
Distribution and service fees - Class B		422,984
Audit and tax services		33,062
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Shareholder reporting		36,087
Insurance		3,436
Miscellaneous		9,174
Total expenses		5,376,524
Less broker commission recapture		(134,623	)
Net expenses		5,241,901
Net investment income		6,403,712
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments
Net realized gain on investments		35,699,327
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments		(88,844,861	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments		(53,145,534	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(46,741,822	)

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $328.

(b) Includes net income on securities loaned of $190,460.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	6,403,712		$	4,029,717
Net realized gain on investments		35,699,327			75,611,712
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments		(88,844,861	)		41,457,431
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations		(46,741,822	)		121,098,860
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(2,871,585	)		(5,261,429	)
Class B		(815,126	)		(1,091,275	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(3,686,711	)		(6,352,704	)
Net increase (decrease) in net assets from capital share transactions		164,146,868			(53,441,075	)
Net Increase in Net Assets		113,718,335			61,305,081
Net assets at beginning of period		580,354,096			519,049,015
Net assets at end of period	$	694,072,431		$	580,354,096
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	5,985,259		$	3,748,471

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		18,503,609		$	242,091,848			4,272,204		$	47,834,401
Reinvestments		213,978			2,871,585			448,545			5,261,429
Redemptions		(8,200,504	)		(110,741,192	)		(10,318,912	)		(118,685,113	)
Net increase (decrease)		10,517,083		$	134,222,241			(5,598,163	)	$	(65,589,283	)
Class B
Sales		4,405,179		$	56,892,452			2,792,394		$	32,424,528
Reinvestments		60,740			815,126			93,033			1,091,275
Redemptions		(2,223,236	)		(27,782,951	)		(1,892,528	)		(21,367,595	)
Net increase		2,242,683		$	29,924,627			992,899		$	12,148,208
Increase (decrease) derived from capital shares transactions				$	164,146,868					$	(53,441,075	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	12.82		$	10.41		$	7.99		$	13.57		$	14.43
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.13			0.09			0.14			0.17			0.18
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.91	)		2.45			2.42			(4.65	)		0.39
Total from investment operations		(0.78	)		2.54			2.56			(4.48	)		0.57
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.08	)		(0.13	)		(0.14	)		(0.13	)		(0.10	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.97	)		(1.33	)
Total distributions		(0.08	)		(0.13	)		(0.14	)		(1.10	)		(1.43	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	11.96		$	12.82		$	10.41		$	7.99		$	13.57
Total Return (%)		(6.13	)		24.56			32.67			(35.92	)		3.37
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.76			0.77			0.77			0.75			0.77
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.76			0.77			0.77			0.75			0.75
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.05			0.85			1.64			1.56			1.27
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		73.8			97.9			116.0			98.5			83.6
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	529.5		$	432.6		$	409.4		$	278.9		$	383.0
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	12.80		$	10.40		$	7.97		$	13.53		$	14.40
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.10			0.07			0.12			0.14			0.14
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.90	)		2.44			2.42			(4.64	)		0.39
Total from investment operations		(0.80	)		2.51			2.54			(4.50	)		0.53
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.06	)		(0.11	)		(0.11	)		(0.09	)		(0.07	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.97	)		(1.33	)
Total distributions		(0.06	)		(0.11	)		(0.11	)		(1.06	)		(1.40	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	11.94		$	12.80		$	10.40		$	7.97		$	13.53
Total Return (%)		(6.29	)		24.23			32.30			(36.07	)		3.10
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.01			1.02			1.02			1.01			1.02
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		1.01			1.02			1.02			1.00			1.00
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.78			0.64			1.37			1.26			0.97
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		73.8			97.9			116.0			98.5			83.6
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	164.6		$	147.8		$	109.7		$	97.1		$	195.7

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A and B Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to broker commission recapture, futures transactions, foreign currency transactions, deferred trustees’ compensation, capital loss carryforwards, Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Securities Lending - The Portfolio may lend its portfolio securities to certain qualified brokers who borrow securities in order to complete certain securities transactions. By lending its portfolio securities, the Portfolio attempts to increase its net investment income through the receipt of income on the loaned securities. Any gain or loss in the market price of the loaned securities that might occur and any interest earned or dividends declared during the term of the loan would accrue to the account of the Portfolio.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

The Trust has entered into a securities lending arrangement with the custodian, State Street Bank and Trust Company (the “custodian”). Under this arrangement, the custodian is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash

or securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral at least equal to 102% of the market value of the loaned securities (105% for foreign equity securities), at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities must be maintained for the duration of the loan. Cash collateral is generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The Navigator Portfolio is a registered money market fund which invests in a variety of high quality U.S. dollar-denominated instruments. If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower shall be required to deliver, by the close of business on the following business day, an additional amount of collateral so that the total amount of posted collateral equals at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of net income (income after the deduction of expenses and fees of the Navigator Portfolio) on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the custodian and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by U.S. Treasuries, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the custodian. The risks associated with lending portfolio securities include, but are not limited to, possible delays in receiving additional collateral or in the recovery of the loaned securities, possible loss of rights in the collateral should the borrower fail financially, as well as risk of loss in the value of the collateral or the value of the investments made with the collateral. Net interest income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2011 is disclosed in the footnotes to the Statement of Operations. Any outstanding loans by the Portfolio at December 31, 2011 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

Directed Brokerage Agreement - The Trust has entered into a directed brokerage arrangement with State Street Global Markets (“SSGM”). Under this arrangement, the Portfolio directs certain trades to SSGM in return for a recapture credit. SSGM issues a cash rebate to the Portfolio. Amounts paid to the Portfolio are shown separately as broker commission recapture on the Statement of Operations of the Portfolio. Additionally, these amounts have been excluded from the calculation of the ratio of net expenses to average net assets presented in the Financial Highlights for each share class.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with Goldman Sachs Asset Management, L.P. (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year ended December 31,  2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$4,680,869		0.75	%	First $200 Million
		0.70	%	Over $200 Million

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Distribution Agreement and Plan - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A and Class B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B distribution plan provides that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B Shares. However, under the Class B distribution agreement, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B distribution plan are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B distribution plan and distribution agreement, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan.

The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. as designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

Affiliated Broker - During the year ended December 31, 2011 the Portfolio paid brokerage commissions to affiliated brokers/dealers:

Affiliate	Commission
Goldman Sachs & Co.	$	61,818

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$—	$	633,228,407	$	—	$	477,487,052

During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio engaged in security purchase transactions with other affiliated portfolios. These purchase transactions amounted to $19,103,446.

5. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

7. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$3,686,711	$	6,352,704	$	—	$	—	$	3,686,711	$	6,352,704

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards			Total
$6,010,326	$	—	$	6,599,378	$	(5,818,528	)	$	6,791,176

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses.

As of December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and the pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards expiring on December 31, 2017 were $5,818,528.

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 23, 2012

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5  Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5  Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and Lipper Index for the one- and five- year periods ended June 30, 2011, and underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and Lipper Index for the three- year period ended June 30, 2011. The Board also considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Russell Midcap Value Index, for the one- year period ended September 30, 2011, and outperformed its benchmark for the three- and five-year periods ended September 30, 2011. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance, including the impact of market conditions on the Sub-Adviser’s investment style. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s overall performance was adequate.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the Expense Group median, Expense Universe median, and Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were above the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee and sub-advisory fee each contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board further considered that the Portfolio’s management fees were below the asset-weighted average at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

25

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust Harris Oakmark International Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Harris Oakmark International Portfolio

Managed by Harris Associates L.P.

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A, B, and E shares of the Harris Oakmark International Portfolio returned -13.98%, -14.25%, and -14.12%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the MSCI EAFE Index¹, returned -12.14%.

Market Environment/Conditions

Market jitters reigned throughout the year, though 2011 finished on a relatively upbeat note. Overall, the Eurozone debt issue dominated investor behavior for most of the year. Noise from the Eurozone seems to have quieted, at least momentarily (again), as the European Central Bank, in its latest effort, allotted 489 billion euros in a 3-year financial support operation to help with the funding problem that several European banks were experiencing.

In the U.S. it seems that things are brightening, as positive signs for the economy were evident late in the year. Indicators point to growth in manufacturing, stronger consumer sentiment, upticks in both housing starts and existing home sales, and declining first-time jobless claims.

More importantly, companies around the globe continue to exhibit extraordinary improvements. Strong balance sheets and substantial free cash flow have led to dividend increases, share repurchases, accelerated mergers and acquisitions activity and business reinvestment. We realize that good news such as this can get overshadowed by the catastrophe du jour. In fact, a multiplicity of positive economic news may be wiped away by one or two negative events, resulting in extreme market swings.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

As active value managers, we believe that the extremes in today’s market provide exploitable opportunities, and we are constantly looking for ways to capitalize on these opportunities in order to add value for our shareholders.

Stock selection detracted from overall relative results, but country weights had a positive impact for the year. Relative performance was pulled back mainly by holdings in Japan, Switzerland, Ireland and Spain. Holdings in Australia, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden contributed most to performance versus the benchmark for the period. In terms of absolute performance, of the 15 countries in which we were invested, 3 posted positive absolute returns for the year. Performance was best for holdings in the U.K. (+11%), South Korea (+10%) and Australia (+7%). The worst declines for the period came from holdings in Ireland (-49%), Italy (-33%) and Canada (-27%).

Currency hedging was actively utilized throughout the year, as we believed that many currencies were overvalued compared to the U.S. dollar. Approximately 67% of the Australian dollar, 64% of the Swiss franc, 60% of the Japanese yen, 19% of the Swedish krona and 13% of the euro exposure were hedged at year-end.

The Portfolio’s worst detractors for the year were Daiwa Securities Group, Credit Suisse Group, and Olympus. Daiwa Securities Group has been hurt by numerous factors, including a particularly weak Japanese stock market and decreased equity and capital-markets activity. New management is aggressively addressing losses in the wholesale business and has placed new priorities on other business lines. The company’s focus is now on the retail banking and asset management divisions—the recently launched retail bank seems to be a game changer. Daiwa spent three years researching this venture and came up with an Internet bank that gives customers access to Daiwa branches. The company aims to attract customers with higher rates and a better platform than competitors to entice them to move money in deposit accounts to investment products. The retail bank has attracted over 1.5 trillion yen (nearly U.S. $20 billion) in deposits after only one year of operation. Daiwa’s balance sheet remained well-capitalized, and we continue to believe it has a powerful franchise.

General concerns surrounding debt defaults in the Eurozone, notably Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain, had a negative impact on global financials over the past year. Even though several remedies have recently been put into place, the pressure on Credit Suisse’s stock has not eased and the price has declined in sympathy with other European financials. However, we believe that the strength of the Swiss franc is the main cause of the company’s profit losses, and not debt-related charges. Credit Suisse has immaterial exposure to sovereign debt. The private bank continued to see strong net new money growth, its balance sheet remained strong, and we believe the company is well-positioned to withstand these short-term difficulties.

A scandal at Olympus began in October when the board abruptly fired CEO Michael Woodford, citing differences in management technique and culture. It was later revealed that Woodford was fired shortly after he questioned inflated fees and takeover costs associated with past acquisitions. An independent investigation into these acquisitions found that executives hid two decades’ worth of investment losses by paying inflated fees to advisors. Olympus shareholders have been greatly hurt by the value destruction that, in our view, can be traced back to an unacceptably lax approach to corporate governance. We believe the board now faces a serious credibility problem and therefore needs to bring in new management to ensure that reforms are made. We do not have confidence that the existing top management can make the necessary changes. We have communicated our concerns directly with the company and also to the Japanese regulators. As long-time investors in Japan, we have seen Japanese companies as a group significantly improve their corporate governance policies in recent years, and their shareholders have benefited from this trend. In our view, the situation at Olympus shows that we still have a ways to go before all Japanese companies move toward a more independent board structure and embrace their shareholders as stakeholders in the company. Now on to the good news—there is a real business here with significant value. Olympus is the world’s leading endoscope company with roughly 75% of the global market. In our opinion, the company offers some very unique, world-leading technologies, has strong cash-flow generation, and operates in a strong market that has mid-single-digit annual growth.

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Harris Oakmark International Portfolio

Managed by Harris Associates L.P.

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

However, the company’s credibility rests on Olympus’ ability to make some very necessary changes.

The Portfolio’s top contributors to performance for the year were Diageo, Wolseley and Roche. Diageo’s strong brand presence in developing markets continued to deliver increased sales, more than offsetting some of the challenges in the European markets. To add to its emerging-markets exposure, Diageo acquired a Turkish spirits company, Mey Icki, in 2011. Mey Icki is the dominant brand in Turkey with approximately 70% market share. This acquisition allowed Diageo to benefit from the continued growth of Raki (a Turkish alcoholic drink) as rising wealth drives a consumer shift toward spirits in Turkey. There is also potential to roll out Diageo’s other premium brands there. Diageo continued to generate strong free cash flow, and management is focused on returning capital to shareholders.

Wolseley’s stock price advanced early in the year when consumer sentiment was relatively positive and investors expected sales of building products to increase. By mid-year, concerns about a double-dip recession and a more pessimistic outlook on the global economy caused share prices to fall, allowing us to add to our position of Wolseley at an attractive discount to intrinsic value. Since the 2008-2009 downturn, management has made significant changes to its financial-reporting systems that now enable real-time monitoring of business performance. Furthermore, management has exited a number of underperforming business units where returns did not justify increased investment or Wolseley’s market position was weak. The company’s stock price rose again late in 2011 after the release of its fiscal full-year results that were better than expected. Both revenues and margins were ahead of our estimates. The best progress was made in the U.S., as like-for-like sales increased 10% year over year and the company continued to gain market share. We believe that some of this excellent progress is the result of the newly implemented system that provides real-time business performance feedback.

In 2009, a string of disappointing news has weakened Roche’s share price. However, in mid-2011, investors reacted favorably to positive data from the company’s seven Phase II and Phase III clinical trials. The Phase II results were most encouraging because they found that a compound that combines traditional antibodies with a chemotherapy agent was significantly more effective and safer than the current standards of care for breast cancer. In addition, the CATT report (Comparison of Age-related macular degeneration Treatment Trial), which was released early in the year, also helped Roche. Previously, investors feared that all wet age-related macular edema (AMD) sales would shift from Lucentis to Avastin, a much-lower-cost drug. (Both are produced by Roche, so a move to Avastin could affect overall profits.) However, even though the report found Avastin might be as effective as Lucentis in AMD treatment, it also found that Avastin carried an increased risk of adverse events. Given this increased risk, we do not think that ophthalmologists are inclined to quickly switch to Avastin, which eases the threat to the sales and profitability of Lucentis.

The Portfolio finished the year with most of its assets invested in Japan (21%) followed by Switzerland (20%) and the U.K. (12%). Israel (0.04%) accounted for the smallest allocation, as there is only one security held in the Portfolio domiciled there.

At the end of 2011, the Portfolio was most heavily weighted in the Financials (25%), Consumer Discretionary and Industrials (both 21%) sectors. The weightings in these sectors were all greater than the benchmark weightings. Technology and Materials (both 11%) weightings also surpassed those of the benchmark. The Portfolio had less-than-benchmark weightings in Consumer Staples (9%) and Health Care (3%) shares and had no exposure to Utilities, Telecom or Energy holdings during the year.

David G. Herro, CFA

Robert A. Taylor, CFA

Portfolio Managers

Harris Associates L.P.

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Harris Oakmark International Portfolio

Managed by Harris Associates L.P.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Daimler AG		3.8
Credit Suisse Group AG		3.8
Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.		3.3
Toyota Motor Corp.		3.3
Adecco S.A.		3.3
Daiwa Securities Group, Inc.		3.2
Canon, Inc.		3.0
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.		3.0
BNP Paribas S.A.		2.9
Rohm Co., Ltd.		2.8

Top Countries

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Japan		20.5
Switzerland		19.5
United Kingdom		12.0
France		8.8
Germany		8.8
Netherlands		8.6
United States		5.1
Italy		4.2
Australia		3.8
Sweden		2.9

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Harris Oakmark International Portfolio

Harris Oakmark International Portfolio managed by

Harris Associates L.P. vs. MSCI EAFE Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 year		5 Year		10 year		Since Inception3
Harris Oakmark International Portfolio—Class A		-13.98%		-1.72%		—		6.21%
Class B		-14.25%		-1.98%		5.90%		—
Class E		-14.12%		-1.87%		—		6.31%
MSCI EAFE Index (net)1		-12.14%		-4.72%		4.67%		—

The performance of Class B shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹ The MSCI Europe, Australasia and Far East Index (“MSCI EAFE Index”) is an unmanaged free float-adjusted market capitalization index that is designed to measure developed market equity performance, excluding the U.S. & Canada. The index returns shown above were calculated with net dividends: they reflect the reinvestment of dividends after the deduction of the maximum possible withholding taxes.

² “Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

³ Inception of the Class A shares is 1/2/2002. Inception of the Class B shares is 10/9/2001. Inception of the Class E shares is 4/01/2002. Index returns are based on an inception date of 10/9/2001.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Harris Oakmark International Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A(a)
Actual		0.84%	$	1,000.00	$	822.30	$	3.86
Hypothetical*		0.84%		1,000.00		1,020.97		4.28
Class B(a)
Actual		1.09%	$	1,000.00	$	820.70	$	5.00
Hypothetical*		1.09%		1,000.00		1,019.71		5.55
Class E(a)
Actual		0.99%	$	1,000.00	$	821.60	$	4.55
Hypothetical*		0.99%		1,000.00		1,020.21		5.04

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

(a) The annualized expense ratio reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 3 to the Financial Statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Harris Oakmark International Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—92.6% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Australia—3.7%
Amcor, Ltd.		8,831,400	$	65,196,137
Orica, Ltd.		1,285,300		31,948,382
Treasury Wine Estates, Ltd. (a)		2,052,866		7,734,016
				104,878,535
Canada—1.1%
Thomson Reuters Corp. (a)		1,124,100		30,102,024
France—8.6%
BNP Paribas S.A.		2,108,600		82,732,574
Danone S.A.		253,600		15,965,052
PPR		455,900		65,345,901
Publicis Groupe S.A. (a)		1,703,100		78,338,341
				242,381,868
Germany—8.6%
Allianz SE		799,400		76,570,375
Daimler AG		2,424,700		106,673,521
SAP AG		1,113,400		59,001,012
				242,244,908
Ireland—1.8%
Bank of Ireland plc*		407,752,100		43,365,959
Experian plc		539,200		7,324,303
				50,690,262
Israel—0.0%
Orbotech, Ltd.*		97,547		973,519
Italy—4.1%
Fiat Industrial S.p.A.*		2,477,878		21,158,824
Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.		56,680,600		94,354,710
				115,513,534
Japan—20.0%
Canon, Inc. (a)		1,902,600		84,166,052
Daiwa Securities Group, Inc. (a)		28,891,300		89,899,128
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (a)		2,114,700		64,380,712
Meitec Corp. (a)		908,000		17,496,872
Olympus Corp. (a)		2,136,200		28,054,512
Omron Corp.		3,123,300		62,668,468
Rohm Co., Ltd. (a)		1,713,000		79,758,480
Secom Co., Ltd.		1,033,100		47,602,538
Toyota Motor Corp.		2,777,200		92,403,289
				566,430,051
Mexico—0.5%
Grupo Televisa S.A. (ADR)		655,666	$	13,808,326
Netherlands—8.4%
Akzo Nobel N.V.		1,580,100		76,196,760
Heineken Holding N.V.		873,700		35,736,808
Koninklijke Ahold N.V.		3,011,400		40,587,449
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.		3,976,600		83,518,483
				236,039,500
Spain—2.3%
Banco Santander S.A. (a)		8,533,000		64,614,169
Sweden—2.8%
Assa Abloy AB - Class B		3,050,500		76,466,066
Atlas Copco A.B.		161,200		3,053,261
				79,519,327
Switzerland—19.0%
Adecco S.A.* (a)		2,211,200		92,324,720
Compagnie Financiere Richemont S.A. - Class A		835,600		42,150,969
Credit Suisse Group AG*		4,533,200		106,560,002
Geberit AG*		102,600		19,787,434
Givaudan S.A.*		74,800		71,123,699
Holcim, Ltd.*		764,600		40,922,704
Kuehne & Nagel International AG		571,600		64,091,439
Nestle S.A.		1,115,200		64,142,859
Novartis AG		431,600		24,700,427
Roche Holding AG		65,500		11,097,286
				536,901,539
United Kingdom—11.7%
BAE Systems plc		3,273,800		14,439,794
Diageo plc		2,927,600		63,905,573
G4S plc		11,151,700		46,955,011
GlaxoSmithKline plc		447,900		10,216,912
Lloyds Banking Group plc*		103,313,800		41,279,327
Reed Elsevier plc		3,194,400		25,769,086
Schroders plc		2,237,400		45,483,218
Signet Jewelers, Ltd. (a)		771,492		33,914,788
Tesco plc		461,700		2,891,295
Wolseley plc		1,420,200		46,826,332
				331,681,336
Total Common Stocks (Cost $2,979,012,816)				2,615,778,898

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Harris Oakmark International Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Short-Term Investments—14.1%

Security Description	Shares/Par Amount		Value
Mutual Funds—9.1%
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (b)		258,042,896	$	258,042,896
Repurchase Agreement—5.0%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement, dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $142,004,158 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $145,030,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. at 0.625% due 12/23/13 with a value of $144,848,713.	$	142,004,000		142,004,000
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $400,046,896)				400,046,896
Total Investments—106.7% (Cost $3,379,059,712#)				3,015,825,794
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(6.7)%				(189,992,474	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	2,825,833,320

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $3,408,249,892. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $109,507,073 and $(501,931,171), respectively, resulting in net unrealized depreciation of $(392,424,098) for federal income tax purposes.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities loaned was $247,964,486 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $258,042,896. The cash collateral is invested in a money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian.

(b) Represents investment of collateral received from securities lending transactions.

(ADR)— An American Depositary Receipt is a certificate issued by a custodian bank representing the right to receive securities of the foreign issuer described. Trading on exchanges not located in the United States or Canada significantly influences the value of ADRs.

Ten Largest  Industries as of December 31, 2011 (Unaudited)
	% of Net Assets
Commercial Banks		11.5
Automobiles		9.3
Capital Markets		8.6
Chemicals		6.3
Media		5.2
Professional Services		4.1
Beverages		3.8
Building Products		3.4
Commercial Services & Supply Industry		3.3
Office Electronics		3.0

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Harris Oakmark International Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2			Level 3		Total
Common Stocks
Australia	$	—	$	104,878,535		$	—	$	104,878,535
Canada		30,102,024		—			—		30,102,024
France		—		242,381,868			—		242,381,868
Germany		—		242,244,908			—		242,244,908
Ireland		—		50,690,262			—		50,690,262
Israel		973,519		—			—		973,519
Italy		—		115,513,534			—		115,513,534
Japan		—		566,430,051			—		566,430,051
Mexico		13,808,326		—			—		13,808,326
Netherlands		—		236,039,500			—		236,039,500
Spain		—		64,614,169			—		64,614,169
Sweden		—		79,519,327			—		79,519,327
Switzerland		—		536,901,539			—		536,901,539
United Kingdom		33,914,788		297,766,548			—		331,681,336
Total Common Stocks		78,798,657		2,536,980,241			—		2,615,778,898
Short-Term Investments
Mutual Funds		258,042,896		—			—		258,042,896
Repurchase Agreement		—		142,004,000			—		142,004,000
Total Short-Term Investments		258,042,896		142,004,000			—		400,046,896
Total Investments	$	336,841,553	$	2,678,984,241		$	—	$	3,015,825,794
Forward Contracts**
Forward Foreign Currency Contracts (Unrealized Appreciation)	$	—	$	77,595,179		$	—	$	77,595,179
Forward Foreign Currency Contracts (Unrealized Depreciation)		—		(14,985,823	)		—		(14,985,823	)
Total Forward Contracts (Net Unrealized Appreciation)	$	—	$	62,609,356		$	—	$	62,609,356

** Derivative instruments such as forwards, futures contracts and swap contracts are valued on the unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the instrument.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Harris Oakmark International Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)(b)	$	2,873,821,794
Repurchase Agreement		142,004,000
Cash		101
Cash denominated in foreign currencies (c)		262,375
Receivable for investments sold		8,742,202
Receivable for shares sold		1,942,441
Dividends receivable		3,530,688
Interest receivable		79
Unrealized appreciation on forward currency exchange contracts		77,595,179
Total assets		3,107,898,859
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		6,092,110
Shares redeemed		594,130
Unrealized depreciation on forward currency exchange contracts		14,985,823
Collateral for securities loaned		258,042,896
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		1,803,458
Distribution and service fees - Class B		201,950
Distribution and service fees - Class E		13,030
Administration fees		12,036
Custodian and accounting fees		153,652
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		141,387
Total liabilities		282,065,539
Net Assets	$	2,825,833,320
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	3,358,757,963
Accumulated net realized loss		(224,483,823	)
Unrealized depreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		(300,646,012	)
Accumulated net investment loss		(7,794,808	)
Net Assets	$	2,825,833,320
Net Assets
Class A	$	1,775,743,378
Class B		948,175,552
Class E		101,914,390
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		149,897,647
Class B		81,223,169
Class E		8,683,242
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	11.85
Class B		11.67
Class E		11.74

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreement, was $3,237,055,712.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $247,964,486.

(c) Identified cost of cash denominated in foreign currencies was $261,940.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	73,013,699
Interest (b)		2,411,096
Total investment income		75,424,795
Expenses
Management fees		21,903,061
Administration fees		139,797
Custodian and accounting fees		1,778,074
Distribution and service fees - Class B		2,555,189
Distribution and service fees - Class E		185,035
Audit and tax services		47,595
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Shareholder reporting		183,726
Insurance		14,338
Miscellaneous		26,817
Total expenses		26,902,342
Less management fee waiver		(461,769	)
Net expenses		26,440,573
Net investment income		48,984,222
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments and Foreign Currency Transactions
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments		150,349,055
Foreign currency transactions		(90,082,253	)
Net realized gain on investments and foreign currency transactions		60,266,802
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on:
Investments		(673,963,272	)
Foreign currency transactions		95,795,682
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		(578,167,590	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments and foreign currency transactions		(517,900,788	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(468,916,566	)

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $6,817,152.

(b) Includes net income on securities loaned of $2,399,575.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Harris Oakmark International Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	48,984,222		$	26,501,406
Net realized gain on investments and foreign currency transactions		60,266,802			190,264,471
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments and foreign currency transactions		(578,167,590	)		130,560,998
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations		(468,916,566	)		347,326,875
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(400,513	)		(23,569,549	)
Class B		—			(14,825,565	)
Class E		—			(2,584,459	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(400,513	)		(40,979,573	)
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		704,978,288			365,315,681
Net Increase in Net Assets		235,661,209			671,662,983
Net assets at beginning of period		2,590,172,111			1,918,509,128
Net assets at end of period	$	2,825,833,320		$	2,590,172,111
Accumulated undistributed net investment income (loss) at end of period	$	(7,794,808	)	$	33,703,736

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		53,922,765		$	744,277,121			23,486,991		$	293,268,257
Reinvestments		27,910			400,513			1,857,332			23,569,549
Redemptions		(11,389,935	)		(151,755,611	)		(7,841,206	)		(95,907,941	)
Net increase		42,560,740		$	592,922,023			17,503,117		$	220,929,865
Class B
Sales		18,297,689		$	241,628,183			19,148,772		$	236,853,011
Reinvestments		—			—			1,181,320			14,825,565
Redemptions		(8,773,603	)		(114,163,384	)		(8,291,750	)		(99,738,952	)
Net increase		9,524,086		$	127,464,799			12,038,342		$	151,939,624
Class E
Sales		1,095,569		$	14,587,978			1,643,338		$	20,345,227
Reinvestments		—			—			205,116			2,584,459
Redemptions		(2,280,440	)		(29,996,512	)		(2,516,305	)		(30,483,494	)
Net decrease		(1,184,871	)	$	(15,408,534	)		(667,851	)	$	(7,553,808	)
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	704,978,288					$	365,315,681

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Harris Oakmark International Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	13.78		$	12.05		$	8.57		$	17.27		$	19.03
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.24			0.16			0.15			0.40			0.33
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(2.17	)		1.83			4.17			(6.46	)		(0.35	)
Total from investment operations		(1.93	)		1.99			4.32			(6.06	)		(0.02	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.00	)+		(0.26	)		(0.84	)		(0.28	)		(0.18	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(2.36	)		(1.56	)
Total distributions		(0.00	)+		(0.26	)		(0.84	)		(2.64	)		(1.74	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	11.85		$	13.78		$	12.05		$	8.57		$	17.27
Total Return (%)		(13.98	)		16.67			55.46			(40.72	)		(0.86	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.85			0.85			0.84			0.85			0.86
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.83			0.84			0.83			0.85			0.86
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.79			1.33			1.58			3.18			1.76
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		47.8			50.7			54.7			52.7			49.6
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	1,775.7		$	1,479.3		$	1,082.1		$	676.3		$	1,458.3

	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	13.61		$	11.91		$	8.47		$	17.09		$	18.87
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.21			0.13			0.13			0.36			0.30
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(2.15	)		1.81			4.11			(6.39	)		(0.36	)
Total from investment operations		(1.94	)		1.94			4.24			(6.03	)		(0.06	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		0.00			(0.24	)		(0.80	)		(0.23	)		(0.16	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(2.36	)		(1.56	)
Total distributions		0.00			(0.24	)		(0.80	)		(2.59	)		(1.72	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	11.67		$	13.61		$	11.91		$	8.47		$	17.09
Total Return (%)		(14.25	)		16.42			55.06			(40.88	)		(1.12	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.10			1.10			1.09			1.10			1.10
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		1.08			1.09			1.08			1.10			1.10
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.60			1.07			1.30			2.93			1.60
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		47.8			50.7			54.7			52.7			49.6
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	948.2		$	975.9		$	710.5		$	433.4		$	862.6

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Harris Oakmark International Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	13.67		$	11.96		$	8.50		$	17.14		$	18.91
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.23			0.15			0.13			0.38			0.33
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(2.16	)		1.80			4.14			(6.42	)		(0.37	)
Total from investment operations		(1.93	)		1.95			4.27			(6.04	)		(0.04	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		0.00			(0.24	)		(0.81	)		(0.24	)		(0.17	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(2.36	)		(1.56	)
Total distributions		0.00			(0.24	)		(0.81	)		(2.60	)		(1.73	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	11.74		$	13.67		$	11.96		$	8.50		$	17.14
Total Return (%)		(14.12	)		16.50			55.27			(40.82	)		(1.00	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.00			1.00			0.99			1.00			1.00
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.98			0.99			0.98			1.00			1.00
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.74			1.22			1.37			3.07			1.75
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		47.8			50.7			54.7			52.7			49.6
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	101.9		$	134.9		$	126.0		$	81.5		$	198.8

+ Distributions from net investment income were less than $0.01.

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Advisor, if applicable.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Harris Oakmark International Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Harris Oakmark International Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A, B and E Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Harris Oakmark International Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign withholding taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to foreign currency transactions, forward transactions, deferred trustees’ compensation, capital loss carryforwards and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Securities Lending - The Portfolio may lend its portfolio securities to certain qualified brokers who borrow securities in order to complete certain securities transactions. By lending its portfolio securities, the Portfolio attempts to increase its net investment income through the receipt of income on the loaned securities. Any gain or loss in the market price of the loaned securities that might occur and any interest earned or dividends declared during the term of the loan would accrue to the account of the Portfolio.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Harris Oakmark International Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

The Trust has entered into a securities lending arrangement with the custodian, State Street Bank and Trust Company (the “custodian”). Under this arrangement, the custodian is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral at least equal to 102% of the market value of the loaned securities (105% for foreign equity securities), at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities must be maintained for the duration of the loan. Cash collateral is generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The Navigator Portfolio is a registered money market fund which invests in a variety of high quality U.S. dollar-denominated instruments. If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower shall be required to deliver, by the close of business on the following business day, an additional amount of collateral so that the total amount of posted collateral equals at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of net income (income after the deduction of expenses and fees of the Navigator Portfolio) on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the custodian and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by U.S. Treasuries, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the custodian. The risks associated with lending portfolio securities include, but are not limited to, possible delays in receiving additional collateral or in the recovery of the loaned securities, possible loss of rights in the collateral should the borrower fail financially, as well as risk of loss in the value of the collateral or the value of the investments made with the collateral. Net interest income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2011 is disclosed in the footnotes to the Statement of Operations. Any outstanding loans by the Portfolio at December 31, 2011 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments.

Foreign Currency Translation - The books and records of the Portfolio are maintained in U.S. dollars. The values of securities, currencies and other assets and liabilities denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars are translated into U.S. dollars based upon foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period. Purchases and sales of investment securities, income and expenses are translated on the respective dates of such transactions. Since the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, it is not practical to isolate that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates from that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities. Such fluctuations are included in the net realized and unrealized gain or loss on investments.

Net realized foreign exchange gains or losses arise from activity in forward foreign currency exchange contracts, sales of foreign currency, currency gains or losses realized between the trade and settlement dates on securities transactions, and the difference between the amounts of dividends, interest, and foreign withholding taxes recorded by the Portfolio and the U.S. dollar equivalent of the amounts actually received or paid by the Portfolio. Gains and losses attributable to foreign currency exchange rates on sales of securities are recorded as Net realized gains and losses on investments. Net unrealized foreign exchange gains and losses arise from changes in the value of assets and liabilities, other than investment securities, resulting from changes in foreign exchange rates.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with Harris Associates L.P. (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Harris Oakmark International Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$21,903,061		0.85	%	First $100 Million
		0.80	%	$100 Million to $1 Billion
		0.75	%	Over $1 Billion

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Management Fee Waiver - Effective January 1, 2009, the Subadviser reduced the subadvisory fee it charges to the Adviser for managing the Portfolio. This fee change reduced the subadvisory fee charged on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets in excess of $1 billion. In connection with this change in the subadvisory fee, the Adviser contractually agreed, effective May 1, 2011, to waive a portion of the management fee through April 30, 2012. This waiver reduced the management fee to the annual rate of 0.725% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets in excess of $1 billion. This arrangement was voluntary for the period from January 1, 2011 through April 30, 2011. Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as a management fee waiver in the Statement of Operations.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Distribution Agreements and Plans - The Trust has distribution agreements with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A, Class B and Class E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B and Class E distribution plans provide that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% and 0.25%, respectively, of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B and Class E Shares. However, under the Class B and Class E distribution agreements, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B and Class E distribution plans are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% and 0.15% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares, respectively. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B and Class E distribution plans and distribution agreements, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B and Class E Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. as designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$—	$	1,921,091,411	$	—	$	1,344,106,927

During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio engaged in security purchase transactions with other affiliated portfolios. These purchase transactions amounted to $33,335,147.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Harris Oakmark International Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - The Portfolio may enter into forward foreign currency exchange contracts to hedge its portfolio holdings against the risk of future movements in certain foreign currency exchange rates. When entering into these contracts, the Portfolio agrees to receive or deliver a fixed quantity of foreign currency for an agreed-upon price on an agreed upon future date. These contracts are valued daily and the Portfolio’s net equity therein, representing unrealized gain or loss on the contracts as measured by the difference between the forward foreign exchange rates at the dates of entry into the contracts and the forward foreign exchange rates at the value date, is included in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. When a contract is closed, the Portfolio recognizes a realized gain or loss equal to the difference between the value of the contract at the time it was opened and the value at the time it was closed.

Realized and unrealized gains and losses on forward foreign currency exchange contracts are included in the Statement of Operations. These contracts involve market and/or credit risk in excess of the amount recognized in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

The use of forward foreign currency exchange contracts does not eliminate fluctuations in the underlying prices of the securities of the Portfolio, but it does establish a rate of exchange that can be achieved in the future. Although forward foreign currency exchange contracts may limit the risk of loss due to a decline in the value of the currency holdings, they also limit any potential gain that might result should the value of the currency increase. In addition, the Portfolio could be exposed to risks if the counterparties to the contracts are unable to meet the terms of the contracts. The Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit risk, as opposed to investment and other types of risk, in respect of foreign currency forward contracts is typically the value of the currency the Portfolio is due from its counterparty at settlement plus the value of the currency paid, if any, to the Portolio’s counterparty.

At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had the following derivatives, grouped into appropriate risk categories:

	Asset Derivatives			Liability Derivatives
Risk Exposure	Statement of Assets and Liabilities Location	Fair Value		Statement of Assets and Liabilities Location	Fair Value
Currency	Unrealized appreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts	$	77,595,179	Unrealized depreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts	$	14,985,823

Transactions in derivative instruments during the year ended December 31, 2011, were as follows:

Statement of Operations Location - Net Realized Gain (Loss)	Currency
Foreign currency transactions	$	(89,150,778	)
Statement of Operations Location - Net Change in Unrealized Gain (Loss)	Currency
Foreign currency transactions	$	96,074,204

For the year ended December 31, 2011, the average amount or number per contract outstanding for each derivative type was as follows:

Derivative Description	Average Notional or Face Amount(a)
Foreign currency transactions	$	1,225,809,724

(a) Averages are based on activity levels during 2011.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Harris Oakmark International Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts to Buy:

Settlement Date	Counterparty	Contracts to Buy			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Net Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
6/20/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		8,150,000	AUD	$	8,213,545	$	7,505,906	$	707,639
6/20/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		3,600,000	AUD		3,628,069		3,422,556		205,513
3/21/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		10,300,000	CHF		11,003,623		13,764,533		(2,760,910	)
3/21/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		98,000,000	CHF		104,694,666		113,533,678		(8,839,012	)
3/21/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		50,000,000	CHF		53,415,646		54,441,323		(1,025,677	)
3/21/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		30,400,000	EUR		39,459,658		40,658,480		(1,198,822	)
9/19/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		2,300,000,000	JPY		30,056,665		29,769,609		287,056
9/19/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		6,430,000,000	JPY		84,027,982		82,967,742		1,060,240
Net Unrealized Depreciation									$	(11,563,973	)

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts to Sell:

Settlement Date	Counterparty	Contracts to Deliver			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Net Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
6/20/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		81,200,000	AUD	$	81,833,112	$	80,761,520	$	(1,071,592	)
3/21/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		140,000,000	CHF		149,563,808		161,548,465		11,984,657
3/21/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		27,300,000	CHF		29,164,943		31,885,074		2,720,131
3/21/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		165,200,000	CHF		176,485,293		196,485,386		20,000,093
3/21/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		57,500,000	CHF		61,427,992		68,865,574		7,437,582
3/21/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		89,000,000	CHF		95,079,849		108,852,523		13,772,674
3/21/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		87,500,000	EUR		113,576,318		124,932,850		11,356,532
3/21/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		37,500,000	EUR		48,675,565		54,509,250		5,833,685
9/19/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		1,900,000,000	JPY		24,829,419		25,045,807		216,388
9/19/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		2,300,000,000	JPY		30,056,665		30,129,557		72,892
9/19/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		30,380,000,000	JPY		397,009,345		398,949,442		1,940,097
9/19/2012	State Street Bank and Trust		103,500,000	SEK		14,931,711		14,841,901		(89,810	)
Net Unrealized Appreciation									$	74,173,329

AUD—Australian Dollar

CHF—Swiss Franc

EUR—Euro

JPY—Japanese Yen

SEK—Swedish Krona

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Harris Oakmark International Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

7. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

8. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

9. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income				Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2011		2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$	400,513	$	40,979,573	$	—	$	—	$	400,513	$	40,979,573

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income		Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Depreciation			Loss Carryforwards			Total
$	54,799,118	$	—	$	(392,405,052	)	$	(195,293,642	)	$	(532,899,576	)

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses.

As of December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and the pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards expiring on December 31, 2017 were $195,293,642.

10. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Harris Oakmark International Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

10. Recent Accounting Pronouncements - continued

processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Harris Oakmark International Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Harris Oakmark International Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Harris Oakmark International Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Harris Oakmark International Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 23, 2012

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5  Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5  Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Harris Oakmark International Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the Harris Oakmark International Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

25

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Harris Oakmark International Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the Harris Oakmark International Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the one- year period ended June 30, 2011, and outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the three- and five-year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the MSCI EAFE Index, for the one- year period ended September 30, 2011, and outperformed its benchmark for the three- and five- year periods ended September 30, 2011. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s overall performance was adequate.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to

26

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Harris Oakmark International Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the Harris Oakmark International Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the Expense Group median, the Expense Universe median and the Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were above the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were above the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s expenses. The Board also noted that the Adviser had reduced the Portfolio’s sub-advisory fee schedule through the implementation of an additional breakpoint, effective January 1, 2009. The Board also noted that effective January 1, 2009, the Adviser began waiving an additional portion of its advisory fee on assets in order for shareholders to benefit from the additional breakpoint being implemented at the sub-advisory fee level. The Board also noted that the Adviser had waived fees and/or reimbursed expenses during the past year. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different

27

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Harris Oakmark International Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

With respect to the Harris Oakmark International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee and sub-advisory fee each contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board also took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s advisory fee structure. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s management fees are above the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

28

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Managed by Invesco Advisers, Inc.

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A, B, and E shares of the Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio returned -0.85%, -1.08%, and -1.00%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Russell 2000 Growth Index¹, returned -2.91%.

Market Environment / Conditions

The calendar year began with equity markets fueled on the second round of “quantitative easing” by the U.S. Federal Reserve and on an upward trend through the first quarter of 2011. However, with the spring came increased volatility and significant macroeconomic distortions due to civil unrest in Egypt and Libya, flooding in Australia and a devastating earthquake and tsunami in Japan. Corporate earnings remained strong with largely positive surprises, but were often overshadowed by investor concerns about continuing high unemployment and soft housing data. Although markets stabilized and were generally in positive territory through the summer, major equity indexes sold off precipitously in August as the U.S. government struggled to raise the nation’s debt ceiling. Despite an eventual agreement between the White House and Congress, credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s announced the first-ever downgrade to long-term U.S. government debt. Uncertainty created by the downgrade combined with the continuing saga surrounding the debt crisis in the Eurozone to reignite fears of a global recession. Despite occasional signs of sustained but muted growth, these macroeconomic factors continued to weigh on markets through the end of the reporting period.

Portfolio Review / Year-End Positioning

The Portfolio had marginally negative returns but outperformed versus the Russell 2000^® Growth Index due primarily to strong stock selection in every sector except Financials during the reporting period.

The Portfolio outperformed by the widest margin in the Consumer Discretionary sector, primarily driven by stock selection. Tractor Supply Co. was a contributor as they effectively shifted product mix to attract more recurring business and also implemented a new customer relationship system which allowed them to more effectively market with less spending. In the consumer services industry group, weight management services provider Weight Watchers International Inc. made a solid contribution to performance. This company continued to benefit from a major overhaul of its business plan resulting in growth of on-line subscription services and meeting businesses, and ultimately revenue and earnings growth.

The Portfolio also outperformed in the Health Care sector driven by stock selection in the pharmaceutical/ biotechnology industry groups. One of the leading contributors to outperformance was Valeant Pharmaceuticals Intl Inc., a maker of pharmaceuticals in the neurology, dermatology and branded generics segments. The company benefited from strong demand for its products, as well as cost savings achieved from a significant acquisition, resulting in revenue and earnings growth. Zoll Medical Group is a manufacturer of defibrillators and body temperature management technology which also contributed to performance. Concerns that Medicare reimbursements would be cut for Zoll’s fast growing Life Vest Wearable Defibrillator product were alleviated late in the year resulting in strong stock appreciation. Another holding that made a positive contribution to performance was generic and private label over-the-counter pharmaceutical maker Perrigo Co.

Outperformance in the Materials sector was also due to stock selection. One of the leading contributors to performance in this sector was corrosion resistant products maker Carpenter Technology which continued to benefit from the new airplane build-cycle as well as improving production efficiencies.

The Portfolio did underperform in the Financials sector, driven primarily by stock selection. One of the leading detractors to performance was independent investment banking firm Greenhill & Co. Inc. Their emphasis on merger and acquisition activity was out of favor as equity markets were volatile during the period and regulatory uncertainty was high. Another detractor from performance was regional bank SVB Financial Group whose business is particularly interest rate sensitive, and was punished when the Federal Reserve Bank made an explicit commitment to low interest rates into 2013.

Throughout the year the Portfolio maintained a “barbell” strategy in positioning that provided exposure to cyclical growth opportunities as well as more defensive areas of the market. Changes during the period were moderate within this framework, however the most significant changes included reductions in the Information Technology, Consumer Discretionary and Energy sectors. Exposure to Health Care and Consumer Staples was increased although they both remain relative underweight positions.

Juliet Ellis, Senior Portfolio Manager

Juan Hartsfield, Portfolio Manager

Clay Manley, Portfolio Manager

Invesco Advisers, Inc.

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Managed by Invesco Advisers, Inc.

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
TransDigm Group, Inc.		1.9
Zoll Medical Corp.		1.2
Wabtec Corp.		1.2
Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. - Class A		1.2
CoStar Group, Inc.		1.1
BioMarin Pharmaceutical, Inc.		1.1
Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd.		1.0
ProAssurance Corp.		1.0
RightNow Technologies, Inc.		1.0
CommVault Systems, Inc.		1.0

Top Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Non-Cyclical		22.6
Cyclical		19.0
Technology		18.2
Industrials		12.8
Energy		7.1
Communications		6.3
Financials		5.7
Basic Materials		4.0
Cash & Cash Equivalents		2.7
Utilities		1.6

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio managed by

Invesco Advisers, Inc. vs. Russell 2000 Growth Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year		Since Inception3
Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio—Class A		-0.85%		2.86%		—		4.43%
Class B		-1.08%		2.60%		4.18%		—
Class E		-1.00%		2.69%		—		4.73%
Russell 2000 Growth Index1		-2.91%		2.09%		4.48%		—

The performance of Class B shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹ The Russell 2000 Growth Index is an unmanaged measure of performance of those Russell 2000 companies (small capitalization companies) that have higher price-to book ratios and higher forecasted growth values.

²“Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

³Inception of the Class A shares is 1/2/2002. Inception of the Class B shares is 10/9/2001. Inception of the Class E shares is 4/1/2002. Index returns are based on an inception date of 10/9/2001.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A(a)
Actual		0.87%	$	1,000.00	$	883.20	$	4.13
Hypothetical*		0.87%		1,000.00		1,020.81		4.43
Class B(a)
Actual		1.12%	$	1,000.00	$	882.40	$	5.31
Hypothetical*		1.12%		1,000.00		1,019.55		5.70
Class E(a)
Actual		1.02%	$	1,000.00	$	882.10	$	4.84
Hypothetical*		1.02%		1,000.00		1,020.06		5.19

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

(a) The annualized expense ratio reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 3 to the Financial Statements.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—97.3% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—2.7%
Hexcel Corp.*		524,297	$	12,693,230
TransDigm Group, Inc.*		275,319		26,342,522
				39,035,752
Air Freight & Logistics—1.6%
Forward Air Corp. (a)		323,079		10,354,682
Hub Group, Inc. - Class A* (a)		374,501		12,145,067
				22,499,749
Auto Components—1.1%
Tenneco, Inc.* (a)		275,360		8,200,221
TRW Automotive Holdings Corp.*		225,031		7,336,010
				15,536,231
Biotechnology—3.2%
Acorda Therapeutics, Inc.*		289,668		6,905,685
BioMarin Pharmaceutical, Inc.* (a)		451,545		15,524,117
Incyte Corp., Ltd.* (a)		769,293		11,547,088
United Therapeutics Corp.*		235,382		11,121,800
				45,098,690
Capital Markets—1.7%
Affiliated Managers Group, Inc.* (a)		133,889		12,846,649
Greenhill & Co., Inc. (a)		125,302		4,557,234
Stifel Financial Corp.* (a)		200,692		6,432,179
				23,836,062
Chemicals—2.7%
Intrepid Potash, Inc.*		305,715		6,918,331
Olin Corp. (a)		561,445		11,032,394
Rockwood Holdings, Inc.*		210,649		8,293,251
Solutia, Inc.*		687,097		11,873,036
				38,117,012
Commercial Banks—1.4%
Huntington Bancshares, Inc.		1,446,745		7,942,630
SVB Financial Group* (a)		248,940		11,871,949
				19,814,579
Commercial Services & Supplies—1.6%
Corrections Corp. of America* (a)		557,256		11,351,305
Tetra Tech, Inc.* (a)		524,037		11,313,959
				22,665,264
Communications Equipment—2.3%
Ciena Corp.* (a)		446,974		5,408,386
Finisar Corp.* (a)		481,695		8,065,983
NETGEAR, Inc.* (a)		321,939		10,807,492
Communications Equipment—(Continued)
Polycom, Inc.*		500,251	$	8,154,091
				32,435,952
Containers & Packaging—0.6%
Greif, Inc. - Class A		187,576		8,544,087
Distributors—0.8%
Pool Corp. (a)		361,498		10,881,090
Diversified Consumer Services—0.6%
Weight Watchers International, Inc. (a)		162,217		8,923,557
Electric Utilities—0.9%
ITC Holdings Corp.		163,297		12,390,976
Electrical Equipment—0.9%
Thomas & Betts Corp.* (a)		233,178		12,731,519
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—0.6%
Littelfuse, Inc. (a)		213,259		9,165,872
Energy Equipment & Services—4.6%
Atwood Oceanics, Inc.* (a)		249,356		9,921,875
Dresser-Rand Group, Inc.*		243,222		12,139,210
Dril-Quip, Inc.* (a)		181,236		11,928,953
FMC Technologies, Inc.*		250,661		13,092,024
Lufkin Industries, Inc. (a)		151,316		10,185,080
Patterson-UTI Energy, Inc.		423,221		8,455,956
				65,723,098
Food & Staples Retailing—0.7%
Ruddick Corp. (a)		247,388		10,548,624
Food Products—2.4%
B&G Foods, Inc. (a)		574,217		13,821,403
Diamond Foods, Inc.		187,216		6,041,461
Lancaster Colony Corp. (a)		198,330		13,752,202
				33,615,066
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—4.3%
Insulet Corp.* (a)		392,000		7,381,360
Masimo Corp.* (a)		435,576		8,138,737
Meridian Bioscience, Inc. (a)		342,370		6,450,251
Sirona Dental Systems, Inc.*		248,728		10,953,981
STERIS Corp. (a)		356,446		10,629,220
Zoll Medical Corp.* (a)		280,722		17,736,016
				61,289,565

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Health Care Providers & Services—4.9%
Centene Corp.* (a)		337,855	$	13,375,679
Chemed Corp. (a)		210,029		10,755,585
Health Management Associates, Inc. - Class A*		1,025,188		7,555,636
HMS Holdings Corp.* (a)		326,842		10,452,407
MEDNAX, Inc.* (a)		150,443		10,833,400
PSS World Medical, Inc.* (a)		389,192		9,414,555
VCA Antech, Inc.* (a)		345,033		6,814,402
				69,201,664
Health Care Technology—1.4%
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc.* (a)		616,188		11,670,601
Quality Systems, Inc. (a)		213,776		7,907,574
				19,578,175
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—4.7%
Choice Hotels International, Inc. (a)		245,666		9,347,591
Darden Restaurants, Inc. (a)		211,430		9,636,979
Dominos Pizza, Inc.* (a)		325,452		11,049,095
Jack in the Box, Inc.* (a)		439,125		9,177,713
LIFE TIME FITNESS, Inc.* (a)		303,822		14,203,679
Penn National Gaming, Inc.* (a)		362,268		13,791,543
				67,206,600
Insurance—1.9%
Brown & Brown, Inc.		514,207		11,636,504
ProAssurance Corp. (a)		184,242		14,706,197
				26,342,701
Internet Software & Services—3.5%
Ancestry.com, Inc.* (a)		248,542		5,706,524
Open Text Corp.*		193,231		9,881,834
RightNow Technologies, Inc.* (a)		338,829		14,478,163
ValueClick, Inc.* (a)		801,739		13,060,328
WebMD Health Corp.* (a)		179,431		6,737,634
				49,864,483
IT Services—0.9%
Alliance Data Systems Corp.* (a)		129,257		13,422,047
Life Sciences Tools & Services—2.4%
Bruker Corp.*		564,494		7,011,016
PAREXEL International Corp.* (a)		516,096		10,703,831
PerkinElmer, Inc.		390,498		7,809,960
Techne Corp.		130,366		8,898,783
				34,423,590
Machinery—5.0%
Crane Co.		247,775	$	11,573,570
Kennametal, Inc.		268,786		9,816,065
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc.		307,068		12,012,500
Lindsay Corp.		179,768		9,867,465
WABCO Holdings, Inc.*		250,879		10,888,149
Wabtec Corp.		235,507		16,473,715
				70,631,464
Metals & Mining—1.3%
Allied Nevada Gold Corp.* (a)		117,684		3,563,471
Carpenter Technology Corp.		231,472		11,916,179
Detour Gold Corp.*		140,303		3,470,148
				18,949,798
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—3.2%
Bill Barrett Corp.* (a)		265,706		9,052,604
Energen Corp. (a)		208,928		10,446,400
James River Coal Co.* (a)		847,720		5,866,222
Resolute Energy Corp.* (a)		802,976		8,672,141
SandRidge Energy, Inc.* (a)		1,365,995		11,146,519
				45,183,886
Personal Products—1.1%
Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. - Class A (a)		337,167		16,376,201
Pharmaceuticals—1.0%
Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd.* (a)		307,596		14,718,469
Professional Services—1.1%
CoStar Group, Inc.* (a)		241,461		16,112,692
Real Estate Investment Trusts—0.8%
Colonial Properties Trust		553,100		11,537,666
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—6.8%
Cavium, Inc.* (a)		367,107		10,436,852
Cymer, Inc.* (a)		232,571		11,572,733
Hittite Microwave Corp.* (a)		214,887		10,611,120
Microsemi Corp.*		612,056		10,251,938
PMC-Sierra, Inc.*		1,592,634		8,775,413
Power Integrations, Inc. (a)		333,295		11,052,062
Semtech Corp.* (a)		503,787		12,503,993
Teradyne, Inc.* (a)		799,306		10,894,541
Volterra Semiconductor Corp.* (a)		403,111		10,323,673
				96,422,325

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Software—10.4%
ANSYS, Inc.*		204,117	$	11,691,822
Aspen Technology, Inc.* (a)		734,631		12,745,848
BroadSoft, Inc.* (a)		357,617		10,800,033
CommVault Systems, Inc.*		334,671		14,297,145
Fair Isaac Corp. (a)		333,025		11,935,616
Informatica Corp.*		377,733		13,949,680
Interactive Intelligence Group* (a)		290,613		6,660,850
Manhattan Associates, Inc.* (a)		339,654		13,749,194
MICROS Systems, Inc.*		277,426		12,922,503
Parametric Technology Corp.*		426,400		7,786,064
Quest Software, Inc.* (a)		496,214		9,229,580
Solarwinds, Inc.* (a)		510,709		14,274,317
Websense, Inc.* (a)		435,219		8,151,652
				148,194,304
Specialty Retail—6.8%
Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (a)		289,642		10,681,997
DSW, Inc. - Class A (a)		226,360		10,007,376
Foot Locker, Inc.		454,690		10,839,809
GameStop Corp. - Class A*		404,901		9,770,261
Group 1 Automotive, Inc. (a)		219,106		11,349,691
Monro Muffler Brake, Inc. (a)		282,458		10,956,546
Tractor Supply Co.		147,713		10,362,067
Urban Outfitters, Inc.*		391,460		10,788,638
Vitamin Shoppe, Inc.* (a)		287,496		11,465,340
				96,221,725
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—2.9%
Maidenform Brands, Inc.* (a)		427,601		7,825,098
Michael Kors Holdings, Ltd.*		323,903		8,826,357
Steven Madden, Ltd.* (a)		372,369		12,846,730
Under Armour, Inc. - Class A* (a)		168,926		12,127,198
				41,625,383
Trading Companies & Distributors—1.6%
Watsco, Inc. (a)		175,424		11,518,340
WESCO International, Inc.* (a)		205,029		10,868,587
				22,386,927
Wireless Telecommunication Services—0.9%
SBA Communications Corp. - Class A* (a)		287,297		12,342,279
Total Common Stocks (Cost $1,219,147,758)				1,383,595,124

Short-Term Investments—29.7%

Security Description	Shares/Par Amount		Value
Mutual Funds—27.0%
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (b)		384,038,245	$	384,038,245
Repurchase Agreement—2.7%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $38,499,043 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $38,365,000 Freddie Mac at 1.375% due 02/25/14 with a value of $39,269,800	$	38,499,000		38,499,000
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $422,537,245)				422,537,245
Total Investments—127.0% (Cost $1,641,685,003#)				1,806,132,369
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(27.0)%				(383,731,431	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	1,422,400,938

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $1,642,423,394. The aggregate unrealized appreciation of investments was $163,708,975, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $163,708,975 for federal income tax purposes.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities loaned was $374,439,369 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $384,038,245 and non-cash collateral with a value of $1,473,692. The cash collateral is invested in a money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The non-cash collateral received consists primarily of government securities and bank letters of credit, and are held for the benefit of the Portfolio at the Portfolio’s custodian. The Portfolio cannot repledge or resell this collateral. As such, this collateral is excluded from the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

(b) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities lending transactions.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Total Common Stocks*	$	1,383,595,124	$	—	$	—	$	1,383,595,124
Short-Term Investments
Mutual Funds		384,038,245		—		—		384,038,245
Repurchase Agreement		—		38,499,000		—		38,499,000
Total Short-Term Investments		384,038,245		38,499,000		—		422,537,245
Total Investments	$	1,767,633,369	$	38,499,000	$	—	$	1,806,132,369

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)(b)	$	1,767,633,369
Repurchase Agreement		38,499,000
Cash		590
Receivable for investments sold		2,655,204
Receivable for shares sold		510,331
Dividends receivable		510,201
Total assets		1,809,808,695
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		2,028,108
Shares redeemed		162,806
Collateral for securities loaned		384,038,245
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		997,727
Distribution and service fees - Class B		63,410
Distribution and service fees - Class E		1,441
Administration fees		5,982
Custodian and accounting fees		10,562
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		74,409
Total liabilities		387,407,757
Net Assets	$	1,422,400,938
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	1,163,158,292
Accumulated net realized gain		94,820,347
Unrealized appreciation on investments		164,447,366
Accumulated net investment loss		(25,067	)
Net Assets	$	1,422,400,938
Net Assets
Class A	$	1,111,792,408
Class B		299,380,440
Class E		11,228,090
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		79,008,603
Class B		21,806,089
Class E		806,414
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	14.07
Class B		13.73
Class E		13.92

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreement, was $1,603,186,003.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $374,439,369.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends	$	8,591,271
Interest (a)		711,547
Total investment income		9,302,818
Expenses
Management fees		12,089,647
Administration fees		71,923
Custodian and accounting fees		126,245
Distribution and service fees - Class B		757,602
Distribution and service fees - Class E		18,444
Audit and tax services		33,073
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,423
Shareholder reporting		85,799
Insurance		9,825
Miscellaneous		14,918
Total expenses		13,276,185
Less management fee waiver		(125,000	)
Less broker commission recapture		(54,435	)
Net expenses		13,096,750
Net investment loss		(3,793,932	)
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments, Futures Contracts and Foreign Currency Transactions
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments		110,455,036
Futures contracts		393,689
Foreign currency transactions		(4,698	)
Net realized gain on investments, futures contracts and foreign currency transactions		110,844,027
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments		(117,350,057	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments, futures contracts and foreign currency transactions		(6,506,030	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(10,299,962	)

(a) Includes net income on securities loaned of $707,315.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment loss	$	(3,793,932	)	$	(3,050,818	)
Net realized gain on investments, futures contracts and foreign currency transactions		110,844,027			45,968,597
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments		(117,350,057	)		225,679,310
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations		(10,299,962	)		268,597,089
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		64,525,269			147,448,227
Net Increase in Net Assets		54,225,307			416,045,316
Net assets at beginning of period		1,368,175,631			952,130,315
Net assets at end of period	$	1,422,400,938		$	1,368,175,631
Accumulated net investment loss at end of period	$	(25,067	)	$	(16,302	)

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		18,148,441		$	276,460,522			17,953,985		$	223,521,618
Redemptions		(14,841,203	)		(232,899,236	)		(6,360,093	)		(76,858,650	)
Net increase		3,307,238		$	43,561,286			11,593,892		$	146,662,968
Class B
Sales		5,682,360		$	81,409,806			4,250,820		$	50,930,540
Redemptions		(4,217,300	)		(60,442,769	)		(4,076,975	)		(47,816,161	)
Net increase		1,465,060		$	20,967,037			173,845		$	3,114,379
Class E
Sales		329,552		$	4,950,941			129,631		$	1,557,646
Redemptions		(338,211	)		(4,953,995	)		(327,066	)		(3,886,766	)
Net decrease		(8,659	)	$	(3,054	)		(197,435	)	$	(2,329,120	)
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	64,525,269					$	147,448,227

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	14.19		$	11.22		$	8.36		$	14.86		$	13.53
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (loss)(a)		(0.03	)		(0.03	)		0.00	+		(0.01	)		(0.06	)
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.09	)		3.00			2.86			(5.35	)		1.60
Total from investment operations		(0.12	)		2.97			2.86			(5.36	)		1.54
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		0.00			0.00			0.00			0.00			0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(1.14	)		(0.21	)
Total distributions		0.00			0.00			0.00			(1.14	)		(0.21	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	14.07		$	14.19		$	11.22		$	8.36		$	14.86
Total Return (%)		(0.85	)		26.47			34.21			(38.60	)		11.40
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.88			0.89			0.90			0.89			0.92
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.87			0.87			0.90			0.89			0.92
Ratio of net investment income (loss) to average net assets (%)		(0.21	)		(0.22	)		0.03			(0.07	)		(0.42	)
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		40.2			35.8			31.4			43.0			33.6
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	1,111.8		$	1,074.4		$	719.1		$	371.6		$	587.1
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	13.88		$	11.00		$	8.22		$	14.66		$	13.39
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment loss(a)		(0.07	)		(0.06	)		(0.02	)		(0.04	)		(0.10	)
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.08	)		2.94			2.80			(5.26	)		1.58
Total from investment operations		(0.15	)		2.88			2.78			(5.30	)		1.48
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		0.00			0.00			0.00			0.00			0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(1.14	)		(0.21	)
Total distributions		0.00			0.00			0.00			(1.14	)		(0.21	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	13.73		$	13.88		$	11.00		$	8.22		$	14.66
Total Return (%)		(1.08	)		26.18			33.82			(38.73	)		11.07
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.13			1.14			1.15			1.14			1.17
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		1.12			1.12			1.15			1.14			1.16
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		(0.46	)		(0.47	)		(0.23	)		(0.33	)		(0.69	)
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		40.2			35.8			31.4			43.0			33.6
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	299.4		$	282.4		$	221.8		$	159.7		$	292.0

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	14.06		$	11.13		$	8.31		$	14.80		$	13.50
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment loss(a)		(0.05	)		(0.05	)		(0.01	)		(0.03	)		(0.09	)
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.09	)		2.98			2.83			(5.32	)		1.60
Total from investment operations		(0.14	)		2.93			2.82			(5.35	)		1.51
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		0.00			0.00			0.00			0.00			0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(1.14	)		(0.21	)
Total distributions		0.00			0.00			0.00			(1.14	)		(0.21	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	13.92		$	14.06		$	11.13		$	8.31		$	14.80
Total Return (%)		(1.00	)		26.33			33.94			(38.70	)		11.20
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.03			1.04			1.05			1.04			1.07
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		1.02			1.02			1.05			1.04			1.07
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		(0.36	)		(0.38	)		(0.13	)		(0.23	)		(0.58	)
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		40.2			35.8			31.4			43.0			33.6
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	11.2		$	11.5		$	11.3		$	9.3		$	17.9

+ Net investment income was less than $0.01.

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Advisor, if applicable.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A, B and E Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to broker commission recapture, futures transactions, deferred trustees’ compensation, capital loss carryforwards, passive foreign investment companies (PFICs), Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Securities Lending - The Portfolio may lend its portfolio securities to certain qualified brokers who borrow securities in order to complete certain securities transactions. By lending its portfolio securities, the Portfolio attempts to increase its net investment income through the receipt of income on the loaned securities. Any gain or loss in the market price of the loaned securities that might occur and any interest earned or dividends declared during the term of the loan would accrue to the account of the Portfolio.

The Trust has entered into a securities lending arrangement with the custodian, State Street Bank and Trust Company (the “custodian”). Under this arrangement, the custodian is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral at least equal to 102% of the market value of the loaned

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

securities (105% for foreign equity securities), at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities must be maintained for the duration of the loan. Cash collateral is generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The Navigator Portfolio is a registered money market fund which invests in a variety of high quality U.S. dollar-denominated instruments. If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower shall be required to deliver, by the close of business on the following business day, an additional amount of collateral so that the total amount of posted collateral equals at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of net income (income after the deduction of expenses and fees of the Navigator Portfolio) on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the custodian and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by U.S. Treasuries, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the custodian. The risks associated with lending portfolio securities include, but are not limited to, possible delays in receiving additional collateral or in the recovery of the loaned securities, possible loss of rights in the collateral should the borrower fail financially, as well as risk of loss in the value of the collateral or the value of the investments made with the collateral. Net interest income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2011 is disclosed in the footnotes to the Statement of Operations. Any outstanding loans by the Portfolio at December 31, 2011 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

Directed Brokerage Agreement - The Trust has entered into a directed brokerage arrangement with State Street Global Markets (“SSGM”). Under the arrangement, the Portfolio directs certain trades to SSGM in return for a recapture credit. SSGM issues a cash rebate to the Portfolio. Amounts paid to the Portfolio are shown separately as broker commission recapture on the Statement of Operations of the Portfolio. Additionally, these amounts have been excluded from the calculation of the ratio of net expenses to average net assets presented in the Financial Highlights for each share class.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with Invesco Advisers, Inc. (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year  ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$12,089,647		0.88	%	First $500 Million
		0.83	%	Over $500 Million

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Management Fee Waiver - Effective November 12, 2009, the Subadviser reduced the subadvisory fee it charges to the Adviser for managing the Portfolio. This fee change reduced the subadvisory fee charged on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets in excess of $250 million but less than

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

$500 million. In connection with this change in the subadvisory fee, the Adviser contractually agreed, effective May 1, 2011, to waive a portion of the management fee through April 30, 2012. This waiver reduced the management fee to the annual rate of 0.830% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets in excess of $250 million up to $500 million. This arrangement was voluntary for the period from January 1, 2011 through April 30, 2011. Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as a management fee waiver in the Statement of Operations.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Distribution Agreements and Plans - The Trust has distribution agreements with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A, Class B and Class E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B and Class E distribution plans provide that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% and 0.25%, respectively, of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B and Class E Shares. However, under the Class B and Class E distribution agreements, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B and Class E distribution plans are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% and 0.15% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares, respectively. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B and Class E distribution plans and distribution agreements, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B and Class E Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. as designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$—	$	607,084,266	$	—	$	563,217,028

During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio engaged in security sale transactions with other affiliated portfolios. These sale transactions amounted to $13,168,655 and resulted in a realized gain of $4,584,199. The Portfolio also engaged in security transactions with other accounts managed by Invesco Advisers, Inc. that amounted to $1,817,056 in Purchases and $653,948 in Sales of investments which are included above.

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments

Futures Contracts - The Portfolio may buy and sell futures contracts (on recognized exchanges) as a hedge, to maintain investment exposure to a target asset class or to enhance return. The Portfolio may be subject to fluctuations in equity prices, interest rates, commodity prices and foreign currency exchange rates in the normal course of pursuing its investment objective. Futures contracts are standardized agreements to buy or sell a security, or deliver a final cash settlement price in connection with an index, interest rate, currency, or other asset. The Portfolio must deposit an amount (“initial margin”) equal to a certain percentage of the face value of the futures contract. The initial margin may be in the form of cash or securities which is returned when the Portfolio’s obligations under the contract have been satisfied. If cash is deposited as the initial margin, it is shown as “restricted cash” on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Futures contracts are marked-to-market daily and subsequent payments (“variation margin”) are made or received by the Portfolio depending on the daily fluctuations in the value of the futures contracts. These amounts are reflected as receivables or payables on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Risks of entering into futures contracts (and related options) include the possibility that the market for these instruments may be illiquid and that a change in the value of the contract or option may not correlate perfectly with changes in the value of the underlying instrument. Futures contracts are exchange traded and the exchange’s clearinghouse, as counterparty to all exchange traded futures, guarantees the futures contracts against default.

During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio entered into equity index futures contracts which were subject to equity price risk. During the period April 26 through April 28, 2011, the Portfolio had bought and sold $31,317,297 in equity index futures contracts.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments - continued

At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not have any open futures contracts. For the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had realized gains in the amount of $393,689 which are shown under Net realized gain on futures contracts in the Statement of Operations.

6. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

7. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income				Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2011		2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—

There were no distributions paid for the years ending December 31, 2011 and 2010.

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards		Total
$—	$	95,558,736	$	163,708,975	$	—	$	259,267,711

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses. At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not have any capital loss carryforwards.

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements - continued

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 23, 2012

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and Lipper Index for the one-, three- and five- year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board also considered that the Portfolio outperformed its benchmark, the Russell 2000 Growth Index, for the one-, three- and five- year periods ended September 30, 2011. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s performance was satisfactory.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees were equal to the Expense Group median, above the Expense Universe median, and below the Sub-advised Expense Universe median and that total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the Expense Group median, the Expense Universe median and the Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were equal to the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were above the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board noted that management had previously implemented a reduction to the Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fee schedules. The Board also noted that the Adviser had previously negotiated a further reduction to the Portfolio’s sub-advisory fee schedule by lowering the level at which breakpoints took effect and that the Adviser began waiving an additional portion of its advisory fee in order for shareholders to benefit from the additional breakpoint being implemented at the sub-advisory fee level. The Board also noted that the Adviser had waived fees and/or reimbursed expenses during the past year. The Board also noted that the Adviser had recently negotiated a reduction to the Portfolio’s sub-advisory fee schedule and that the Adviser agreed to waive a corresponding portion of its advisory fee in order for shareholders to benefit from the sub-advisory fee reduction effective January 1, 2012. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule

25

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

With respect to the Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee and sub-advisory fee each contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board also took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s advisory fee structure. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s management fee was above the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

26

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust Janus Forty Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Janus Forty Portfolio

Managed by Janus Capital Management LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A, B, and E shares of the Janus Forty Portfolio returned -7.32%, -7.54%, and -7.45%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Russell 1000 Growth Index¹, returned 2.64%.

Market Environment/Conditions

Volatility and correlations remained near record levels as the markets traded around geopolitical and macroeconomic issues, including fears of a recession in Europe and hard landing in China. While the U.S. recovery remains fragile, leading economic indicators and consumer confidence showed signs of improvement in the fourth quarter. U.S. stocks recovered toward the end of the year to finish the period with modest gains.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

The Portfolio’s holdings in Information Technology declined overall and were the weakest sector versus the index. Some large- and mega-cap names that we did not own were large outperformers in the benchmark, hurting relative performance. We believe the long-term growth drivers of our holdings remain intact, however, and we maintained most positions.

Our Energy holdings declined in absolute terms and underperformed the benchmark, mainly due to weak relative performance in two energy field services companies. The stocks declined amid concerns of overcapacity in the industry. In the long term, we feel the oil-field services companies are a natural beneficiary of increased drilling activity in North America. Much of the world’s easy-to-extract oil has been found and companies are now tapping on-shore, horizontal shale formations for new production. We think this is resulting in greater usage of services and equipment, creating a long-term opportunity for companies with exposure to these trends.

On a positive note, the Portfolio’s selections within Industrials rose overall and outperformed the benchmark. We think our holdings have good pricing opportunities and competitive moats that should enable them to create value long-term. Our position in a freight transportation and logistics company illustrates our approach. The company has expanded historically while protecting margins and returns on invested capital. It also operates in a highly fragmented industry, providing ample opportunity to consolidate and gain market share. Revenues from its top 500 customers are growing faster than its overall sales, and its share of logistics spending by these customers remains below 10%, providing plenty of room for expansion as the company sells more integrated and complete solutions.

Detractors

The largest relative detractor over the period was Ivanhoe Mines, Ltd. Ivanhoe is an international mineral exploration and development company that is levered to copper prices. The company has one of the largest new copper discoveries in close proximity to one of the largest customers of copper—China. We think this puts Ivanhoe Mines, Ltd. in a uniquely strong position to benefit from China’s growth.

Ford Motor Co. was weak. While the stock price declined, the company has continued to improve its business. It has cut capacity, lowered labor costs and improved profitability. We like the automaker’s improved financial position and potential to benefit from the ongoing recovery in auto sales.

EMC Corp. detracted from relative results. The enterprise storage products company declined on concerns of weakening hardware demand. In the long term, the company’s product portfolio in hardware and software is well positioned to benefit from improving fundamentals in high-end and mid-range storage, which has become one of the fastest growth areas of enterprise information technology.

Contributors

Apple, Inc. was a top contributor for the year and remained a top position in the Portfolio largely because of its highly successful line of differentiated mobile computing products, from the iPad to the iPhone, and because of its growing market share in personal computers. The company continues to leverage its vertical integration, innovate its product portfolio and demonstrate sales strength in international markets.

News Corp. rose during the period, overcoming weakness in the stock after the global media company became involved in a phone-hacking scandal involving one of its newspapers in the U.K. While we continue to monitor the situation, we feel the company’s non-newspaper businesses continue to be strong and are well positioned to gain market share. We also like the company’s role as a provider of content, which we think will be highly valued going forward.

Limited Brands, Inc. recorded strong gains. We like the specialty retailer for its dominant and growing market share in intimate apparel and personal care categories in the U.S. We also appreciate Limited Brands, Inc.’s international expansion opportunities and that management is returning capital to shareholders.

Portfolio Positioning

At the end of the 12-month period, the Portfolio was overweight in Information Technology, Financials and Health Care, and underweight in Energy and Consumer Staples. The Portfolio’s performance was disappointing in the year. Many of our holdings have continued to perform well from an operating perspective yet their stock prices have not responded as much as we had expected. We maintain a high level of conviction in our holdings, which consist of businesses with long-duration growth opportunities, potential for share gains and competitive advantages.

Ron Sachs, CFA

Portfolio Manager

Janus Capital Management LLC

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Janus Forty Portfolio

Managed by Janus Capital Management LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Apple, Inc.		9.4
eBay, Inc.		7.7
Celgene Corp.		7.6
Medco Health Solutions, Inc.		5.7
FANUC Corp.		4.6
News Corp. - Class A		4.3
Limited Brands, Inc.		3.9
Microsoft Corp.		3.8
Ivanhoe Mines, Ltd.		3.7
United Parcel Service, Inc. - Class B		3.5

Top Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Non-Cyclical		21.2
Technology		19.2
Industrials		16.2
Communications		15.4
Cyclical		12.0
Financials		6.2
Basic Materials		3.7
Energy		3.6
Cash & Cash Equivalents		2.5

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Janus Forty Portfolio

Janus Forty Portfolio managed by

Janus Capital Management LLC vs.

Russell 1000 Growth Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year		Since Inception3
Janus Forty Portfolio—Class A		-7.32%		2.00%		4.17%		—
Class B		-7.54%		—		—		0.51%
Class E		-7.45%		—		—		0.61%
Russell 1000 Growth Index1		2.64%		2.50%		2.60%		—

The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other classes of shares because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹The Russell 1000 Growth Index is an unmanaged measure of performance of the largest capitalized U.S. companies, within the Russell 1000 companies, that have higher price-to-book ratios and forecasted growth values.

²“Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gains distributions.

³Inception of Class A shares is 3/19/1982. Inception of Class B and Class E shares is 4/28/2007.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Janus Forty Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A
Actual		0.67%	$	1,000.00	$	906.40	$	3.22
Hypothetical*		0.67%		1,000.00		1,021.82		3.41
Class B
Actual		0.92%	$	1,000.00	$	905.30	$	4.42
Hypothetical*		0.92%		1,000.00		1,020.56		4.69
Class E
Actual		0.82%	$	1,000.00	$	905.80	$	3.94
Hypothetical*		0.82%		1,000.00		1,021.07		4.18

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Janus Forty Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—97.6% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—2.7%
Precision Castparts Corp. (a)		268,275	$	44,209,037
Air Freight & Logistics—5.8%
C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (a)		528,450		36,875,241
United Parcel Service, Inc. - Class B (a)		791,240		57,910,856
				94,786,097
Automobiles—2.0%
Ford Motor Co.* (a)		3,116,485		33,533,379
Beverages—2.0%
Anheuser-Busch InBev N.V.		271,272		16,604,388
Pernod Ricard S.A. (a)		182,378		16,918,000
				33,522,388
Biotechnology—8.8%
Celgene Corp.*		1,839,216		124,331,001
Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.*		605,475		20,107,825
				144,438,826
Capital Markets—1.3%
Charles Schwab Corp. (The) (a)		1,944,461		21,894,631
Commercial Banks—1.6%
Standard Chartered plc		1,172,533		25,538,033
Commercial Services & Supplies—2.0%
Iron Mountain, Inc. (a)		1,063,525		32,756,570
Computers & Peripherals—13.0%
Apple, Inc.*		381,063		154,330,515
EMC Corp.*		2,679,805		57,723,000
				212,053,515
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—3.1%
Amphenol Corp. - Class A		398,715		18,097,674
TE Connectivity, Ltd.		1,088,095		33,524,207
				51,621,881
Energy Equipment & Services—1.8%
Baker Hughes, Inc.		334,540		16,272,026
Halliburton Co.		376,050		12,977,485
				29,249,511
Health Care Providers & Services—8.4%
Express Scripts, Inc.*		992,880		44,371,807
Medco Health Solutions, Inc.*		1,662,042		92,908,148
				137,279,955
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—1.8%
MGM Resorts International* (a)		2,841,027	$	29,631,912
Insurance—3.3%
AIA Group, Ltd.		7,979,800		24,870,993
Prudential plc		2,923,614		28,818,014
				53,689,007
Internet & Catalog Retail—0.8%
Amazon.com, Inc.*		71,995		12,462,334
Internet Software & Services—7.7%
eBay, Inc.*		4,158,775		126,135,646
Machinery—4.6%
FANUC Corp.		488,200		74,601,899
Media—4.3%
News Corp. - Class A		3,932,815		70,161,420
Metals & Mining—3.7%
Ivanhoe Mines, Ltd.* (a)		3,436,057		60,886,930
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—1.8%
Southwestern Energy Co.* (a)		932,560		29,785,966
Software—6.3%
Microsoft Corp.		2,392,500		62,109,300
Oracle Corp.		1,577,101		40,452,641
				102,561,941
Specialty Retail—3.9%
Limited Brands, Inc. (a)		1,585,510		63,975,328
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—4.3%
Compagnie Financiere Richemont S.A. - Class A		699,013		35,260,980
NIKE, Inc. - Class B		250,380		24,129,121
Prada S.p.A.*		2,350,500		10,572,780
				69,962,881
Wireless Telecommunication Services—2.6%
Crown Castle International Corp.*		964,250		43,198,400
Total Common Stocks (Cost $1,442,945,251)				1,597,937,487
Short-Term Investments—5.6%
Mutual Funds—3.1%
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (b)		50,369,793		50,369,793

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Janus Forty Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Short-Term Investments—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount		Value
Repurchase Agreement—2.5%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $40,251,045 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $8,200,000 U.S. Treasury Note at 2.500% due 03/31/13 with a value of $8,487,000; and by $31,970,000 U.S. Treasury Note at 1.375% due 01/15/13 with a value of $32,569,438.	$	40,251,000	$	40,251,000
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $90,620,793)				90,620,793
Total Investments—103.2% (Cost $1,533,566,044#)				1,688,558,280
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(3.2)%				(51,787,276	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	1,636,771,004

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $1,561,876,340. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $273,261,088 and $(146,579,148), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $126,681,940 for federal income tax purposes.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities loaned was $48,963,520 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $50,369,793 and non-cash collateral with a value of $18,948. The cash collateral is invested in a money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The non-cash collateral received consists primarily of government securities and bank letters of credit, and are held for the benefit of the Portfolio at the Portfolio’s custodian. The Portfolio cannot repledge or resell this collateral. As such, this collateral is excluded from the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

(b) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities lending transactions.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Janus Forty Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Common Stocks
Aerospace & Defense	$	44,209,037	$	—	$	—	$	44,209,037
Air Freight & Logistics		94,786,097		—		—		94,786,097
Automobiles		33,533,379		—		—		33,533,379
Beverages		—		33,522,388		—		33,522,388
Biotechnology		144,438,826		—		—		144,438,826
Capital Markets		21,894,631		—		—		21,894,631
Commercial Banks		—		25,538,033		—		25,538,033
Commercial Services & Supplies		32,756,570		—		—		32,756,570
Computers & Peripherals		212,053,515		—		—		212,053,515
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components		51,621,881		—		—		51,621,881
Energy Equipment & Services		29,249,511		—		—		29,249,511
Health Care Providers & Services		137,279,955		—		—		137,279,955
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure		29,631,912		—		—		29,631,912
Insurance		—		53,689,007		—		53,689,007
Internet & Catalog Retail		12,462,334		—		—		12,462,334
Internet Software & Services		126,135,646		—		—		126,135,646
Machinery		—		74,601,899		—		74,601,899
Media		70,161,420		—		—		70,161,420
Metals & Mining		60,886,930		—		—		60,886,930
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels		29,785,966		—		—		29,785,966
Software		102,561,941		—		—		102,561,941
Specialty Retail		63,975,328		—		—		63,975,328
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods		24,129,121		45,833,760		—		69,962,881
Wireless Telecommunication Services		43,198,400		—		—		43,198,400
Total Common Stocks		1,364,752,400		233,185,087		—		1,597,937,487
Short-Term Investments
Mutual Funds		50,369,793		—		—		50,369,793
Repurchase Agreement		—		40,251,000		—		40,251,000
Total Short-Term Investments		50,369,793		40,251,000		—		90,620,793
Total Investments	$	1,415,122,193	$	273,436,087	$	—	$	1,688,558,280

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Janus Forty Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)(b)	$	1,648,307,280
Repurchase Agreement		40,251,000
Cash		273
Cash denominated in foreign currencies (c)		10,984
Receivable for shares sold		45,740
Dividends receivable		971,971
Total assets		1,689,587,248
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		199,556
Shares redeemed		1,103,298
Collateral for securities loaned		50,369,793
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		880,340
Distribution and service fees - Class B		82,841
Distribution and service fees - Class E		4,248
Administration fees		6,977
Custodian and accounting fees		19,712
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,068
Other expenses		124,411
Total liabilities		52,816,244
Net Assets	$	1,636,771,004
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	1,583,557,093
Accumulated net realized loss		(80,744,153	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		155,009,720
Distributions in excess of net investment income		(21,051,656	)
Net Assets	$	1,636,771,004
Net Assets
Class A	$	1,213,808,347
Class B		389,794,573
Class E		33,168,084
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		19,069,692
Class B		6,397,576
Class E		534,130
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	63.65
Class B		60.93
Class E		62.10

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreement, was $1,493,315,044.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $48,963,520.

(c) Identified cost of cash denominated in foreign currencies was $11,001.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	20,025,097
Interest (b)		322,534
Total investment income		20,347,631
Expenses
Management fees		11,296,228
Administration fees		89,827
Custodian and accounting fees		281,322
Distribution and service fees - Class B		1,038,783
Distribution and service fees - Class E		59,629
Audit and tax services		33,283
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Shareholder reporting		157,717
Insurance		6,409
Miscellaneous		23,432
Total expenses		13,055,340
Less broker commission recapture		(62,539	)
Net expenses		12,992,801
Net investment income		7,354,830
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments and Foreign Currency Transactions
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments		76,011,891
Foreign currency transactions		(292,502	)
Net realized gain on investments and foreign currency transactions		75,719,389
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on:
Investments		(217,769,809	)
Foreign currency transactions		4,476
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		(217,765,333	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments and foreign currency transactions		(142,045,944	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(134,691,114	)

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $332,861.

(b) Includes net income on securities loaned of $316,240.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Janus Forty Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	7,354,830		$	6,835,375
Net realized gain on investments and foreign currency transactions		75,719,389			81,925,781
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments and foreign currency transactions		(217,765,333	)		65,294,359
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations		(134,691,114	)		154,055,515
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(24,186,431	)		(21,788,373	)
Class B		(6,932,714	)		(5,443,335	)
Class E		(697,884	)		(821,257	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(31,817,029	)		(28,052,965	)
Net increase (decrease) in net assets from capital share transactions		(59,233,284	)		99,131,273
Net Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets		(225,741,427	)		225,133,823
Net assets at beginning of period		1,862,512,431			1,637,378,608
Net assets at end of period	$	1,636,771,004		$	1,862,512,431
Distributions in excess of net investment income at end of period	$	(21,051,656	)	$	(830,993	)

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		2,700,929		$	193,097,660			3,153,553		$	208,240,987
Reinvestments		342,535			24,186,431			323,030			21,788,373
Redemptions		(3,944,931	)		(274,494,024	)		(3,143,967	)		(199,608,209	)
Net increase (decrease)		(901,467	)	$	(57,209,933	)		332,616		$	30,421,151
Class B
Sales		1,192,513		$	78,129,937			2,136,927		$	131,979,073
Reinvestments		102,388			6,932,714			84,054			5,443,335
Redemptions		(1,176,730	)		(77,120,781	)		(1,005,927	)		(61,298,113	)
Net increase		118,171		$	7,941,870			1,215,054		$	76,124,295
Class E
Sales		53,272		$	3,495,468			90,728		$	5,706,453
Reinvestments		10,120			697,884			12,464			821,257
Redemptions		(211,291	)		(14,158,573	)		(223,719	)		(13,941,883	)
Net decrease		(147,899	)	$	(9,965,221	)		(120,527	)	$	(7,414,173	)
Increase (decrease) derived from capital shares transactions				$	(59,233,284	)				$	99,131,273

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Janus Forty Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	69.87		$	64.76		$	45.22		$	83.81		$	77.64
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.32			0.29			0.07			0.02			0.17
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(5.32	)		5.94			19.47			(32.34	)		20.21
Total from investment operations		(5.00	)		6.23			19.54			(32.32	)		20.38
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(1.22	)		(1.12	)		0.00			(4.38	)		(0.15	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(1.89	)		(14.06	)
Total distributions		(1.22	)		(1.12	)		0.00			(6.27	)		(14.21	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	63.65		$	69.87		$	64.76		$	45.22		$	83.81
Total Return (%)		(7.32	)		9.68			43.21			(41.85	)		30.46
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.66			0.67			0.68			0.67			0.70
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)		0.66			0.67			0.68			0.67			0.69
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.47			0.46			0.12			0.02			0.23
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		47.1			41.3			27.0			61.2			30.1
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	1,213.8		$	1,395.5		$	1,271.8		$	627.8		$	1,122.3
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	66.97		$	62.17		$	43.52		$	81.06		$	66.33
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (loss)(a)		0.15			0.14			(0.07	)		(0.17	)		(0.11	)
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(5.10	)		5.68			18.72			(31.12	)		14.84
Total from investment operations		(4.95	)		5.82			18.65			(31.29	)		14.73
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(1.09	)		(1.02	)		0.00			(4.36	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(1.89	)		0.00
Total distributions		(1.09	)		(1.02	)		0.00			(6.25	)		0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	60.93		$	66.97		$	62.17		$	43.52		$	81.06
Total Return (%)		(7.54	)		9.40			42.85			(41.99	)		22.21
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.91			0.92			0.93			0.93			0.96	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)		0.91			0.92			0.93			0.93			0.96	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.22			0.23			(0.13	)		(0.27	)		(0.21	)*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		47.1			41.3			27.0			61.2			30.1
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	389.8		$	420.5		$	314.8		$	136.4		$	47.2

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Janus Forty Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	68.19		$	63.25		$	44.23		$	82.22		$	67.23
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (loss)(a)		0.20			0.19			(0.02	)		(0.10	)		(0.05	)
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(5.18	)		5.80			19.04			(31.63	)		15.04
Total from investment operations		(4.98	)		5.99			19.02			(31.73	)		14.99
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(1.11	)		(1.05	)		0.00			(4.37	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(1.89	)		0.00
Total distributions		(1.11	)		(1.05	)		0.00			(6.26	)		0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	62.10		$	68.19		$	63.25		$	44.23		$	82.22
Total Return (%)		(7.45	)		9.50			43.00			(41.94	)		22.30
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.81			0.82			0.83			0.83			0.86	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)		0.81			0.82			0.83			0.82			0.86	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.30			0.30			(0.03	)		(0.15	)		(0.10	)*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		47.1			41.3			27.0			61.2			30.1
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	33.2		$	46.5		$	50.8		$	27.8		$	14.6

* Annualized.

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Commencement of operations was 4/28/2007.

(c) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Janus Forty Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Janus Forty Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is non-diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A, B and E Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Janus Forty Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to broker commission recapture, foreign currency transactions, passive foreign investment companies (PFICs), deferred trustees’ compensation, capital loss carryforwards and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Securities Lending - The Portfolio may lend its portfolio securities to certain qualified brokers who borrow securities in order to complete certain securities transactions. By lending its portfolio securities, the Portfolio attempts to increase its net investment income through the receipt of income on the loaned securities. Any gain or loss in the market price of the loaned securities that might occur and any interest earned or dividends declared during the term of the loan would accrue to the account of the Portfolio.

The Trust has entered into a securities lending arrangement with the custodian, State Street Bank and Trust Company (the “custodian”). Under this arrangement, the custodian is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral at least equal to 102% of the market value of the loaned

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Janus Forty Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

securities (105% for foreign equity securities), at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities must be maintained for the duration of the loan. Cash collateral is generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The Navigator Portfolio is a registered money market fund which invests in a variety of high quality U.S. dollar-denominated instruments. If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower shall be required to deliver, by the close of business on the following business day, an additional amount of collateral so that the total amount of posted collateral equals at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of net income (income after the deduction of expenses and fees of the Navigator Portfolio) on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the custodian and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by U.S. Treasuries, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the custodian. The risks associated with lending portfolio securities include, but are not limited to, possible delays in receiving additional collateral or in the recovery of the loaned securities, possible loss of rights in the collateral should the borrower fail financially, as well as risk of loss in the value of the collateral or the value of the investments made with the collateral. Net interest income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2011 is disclosed in the footnotes to the Statement of Operations. Any outstanding loans by the Portfolio at December 31, 2011 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

Directed Brokerage Agreement - The Trust has entered into a directed brokerage arrangement with State Street Global Markets (“SSGM”). Under this arrangement, the Portfolio directs certain trades to SSGM in return for a recapture credit. SSGM issues a cash rebate to the Portfolio. Amounts paid to the Portfolio are shown separately as broker commission recapture on the Statement of Operations of the Portfolio. Additionally, these amounts have been excluded from the calculation of the ratio of net expenses to average net assets presented in the Financial Highlights for each share class.

Foreign Currency Translation - The books and records of the Portfolio are maintained in U.S. dollars. The values of securities, currencies and other assets and liabilities denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars are translated into U.S. dollars based upon foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period. Purchases and sales of investment securities, income and expenses are translated on the respective dates of such transactions. Since the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, it is not practical to isolate that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates from that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities. Such fluctuations are included in the net realized and unrealized gain or loss on investments.

Net realized foreign exchange gains or losses arise from activity in forward foreign currency exchange contracts, sales of foreign currency, currency gains or losses realized between the trade and settlement dates on securities transactions, and the difference between the amounts of dividends, interest, and foreign withholding taxes recorded by the Portfolio and the U.S. dollar equivalent of the amounts actually received or paid by the Portfolio. Gains and losses attributable to foreign currency exchange rates on sales of securities are recorded as Net realized gains and losses on investments. Net unrealized foreign exchange gains and losses arise from changes in the value of assets and liabilities, other than investment securities, resulting from changes in foreign exchange rates.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with Janus Capital Management LLC (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Janus Forty Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$11,296,228		0.65	%	First $1 Billion
		0.60	%	Over $1 Billion

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Distribution Agreements and Plans - The Trust has distribution agreements with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A, Class B and Class E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B and Class E distribution plans provide that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% and 0.25%, respectively, of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B and Class E Shares. However, under the Class B and Class E distribution agreements, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B and Class E distribution plans are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% and 0.15% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares, respectively. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B and Class E distribution plans and distribution agreements, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B and Class E Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. as designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$—	$	825,847,723	$	—	$	841,938,852

During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio engaged in security purchase transactions with other affiliated portfolios. These purchase transactions amounted to $6,362,796.

5. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio;

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Janus Forty Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk - continued

conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

7. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$31,817,029	$	28,052,965	$	—	$	—	$	31,817,029	$	28,052,965

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards			Total
$7,008,400	$	—	$	126,699,445	$	(80,468,867	)	$	53,238,978

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses.

As of December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and the pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards and expiration dates were as follows:

Expiring 12/31/2012			Expiring 12/31/2017		Total
$	52,569,301	*	$	27,899,566	$	80,468,867

* The Portfolio acquired capital losses in a merger with the Capital Appreciation Fund, a series of The Travelers Series Trust, on May 1, 2006.

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Janus Forty Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements - continued

effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Janus Forty Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Janus Forty Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Janus Forty Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Janus Forty Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 23, 2012

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5  Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5  Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Janus Forty Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the Janus Forty Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Janus Forty Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the Janus Forty Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the one- and three- year periods ended June 30, 2011, and outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the five-year period ended June 30, 2011. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Russell 1000 Growth Index, for the one- and three- year periods ended September 30, 2011, and outperformed the Russell 1000 Growth Index for the five-year period ended September 30, 2011. The Board also took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance, including that the performance of the Portfolio over the long-term has been solid. The Board also took into account management’s discussion of the peer group in which the Portfolio was placed for the Lipper Report. The Board also noted the continued monitoring of the Portfolio. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s underperformance was being reasonably addressed and/or monitored.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Janus Forty Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the Janus Forty Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the Expense Group median, the Expense Universe median and the Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were above the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Adviser had recently negotiated a reduction to the Portfolio’s sub-advisory fee schedule through the implementation of an additional breakpoint and that the Adviser agreed to waive a corresponding portion of its advisory fee in order for shareholders to benefit from the additional breakpoint being implemented at sub-advisory fee level effective January 1, 2012. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Janus Forty Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

With respect to the Janus Forty Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee and sub-advisory fee each contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s management fees are above the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

25

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio

Managed by Lazard Asset Management LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A, B, and E shares of the Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio returned -5.13%, -5.28%, and -5.27%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Russell Midcap Index¹, returned -1.55%.

Market Environment/Conditions

The market’s annual results veiled its high volatility, which was largely driven by macroeconomic events. In particular, the sovereign debt crisis in the Eurozone, concerns about inflation in the emerging markets and a hard landing in China, and political disputes by United States (“U.S.”) congressional leaders over the nation’s debt ceiling and the country’s subsequent long-term credit downgrade affected the market. However, corporate earnings continued to be a bright spot in the uncertain market environment, as companies, particularly those in the United States, have been actively reducing costs and capital expenditures to ensure strong profitability and cash generation, even in a lackluster economic environment. Although the outcome of the European Union summit lacked full details, it appeared to be a step toward greater economic integration, which is vital for a comprehensive solution to the sovereign debt crisis, in our view. Additionally, investors were heartened as U.S. economic data strengthened over the last several weeks of 2011. Claims for new unemployment benefits have fallen, and both industrial production and consumer spending have increased. Sector leadership for the year in the Russell Midcap Index¹ was led by the traditionally more defensive Utilities and Consumer Staples sectors.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

Stock selection in the Health Care sector detracted from performance. Shares of pharmaceutical company Warner Chilcott plc declined on investor concerns over the firm’s levered balance sheet, a Food & Drug Administration review of its osteoporosis drugs, and the risk of generic competition for an oral acne drug. We are comfortable with Warner Chilcott’s debt, as the company does not have maturities until 2016 and has excellent free cash flow, in our view. We also believe that the worries surrounding the company’s products are manageable. Stock selection in the Materials sector also hurt returns.

Stock selection in the Information Technology sector contributed to the Portfolio’s performance. Shares of Motorola Mobility Holdings, the spin-off of Motorola’s wireless and cable business, climbed after Google forged a deal to buy the company for $12.5 billion. The deal, which must be approved by the Justice Department, is expected to close in early 2012. A lack of exposure to telecom services also helped returns, as the sector was the worst performer in the index during the year.

Shares of salt maker Compass Minerals International, Inc. declined on macroeconomic and weather-related concerns. We believe the company has a strong balance sheet and good growth potential.

We continue to find what we believe are great investment opportunities, companies with excellent organic cash flow, strong balance sheets and operational flexibility, which also have attractive valuations. We believe these characteristics should enable the companies to persevere through volatility and be rewarded appropriately for their resilience when the major macro, political and regulatory concerns currently affecting the market have become less prominent in investors’ minds.

Robert A. Failla, Portfolio Manager/Analyst

Christopher H. Blake, Portfolio Manager/Analyst

Daniel P. Breslin, Portfolio Manager/Analyst

Martin Flood, Portfolio Manager/Analyst

Andrew D. Lacey, Portfolio Manager/Analyst

Lazard Asset Management LLC

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio

Managed by Lazard Asset Management LLC

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
CMS Energy Corp.		3.1
Ameriprise Financial, Inc.		2.9
Energizer Holdings, Inc.		2.8
Wisconsin Energy Corp.		2.5
Dover Corp.		2.5
Thomas & Betts Corp.		2.4
Molson Coors Brewing Co. - Class B		2.3
Ross Stores, Inc.		2.3
Ralcorp Holdings, Inc.		2.1
Corrections Corp. of America		2.1

Top Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Non-Cyclical		18.1
Cyclical		16.2
Financials		15.2
Technology		13.7
Industrials		12.2
Utilities		7.2
Energy		6.5
Communications		4.3
Basic Materials		3.8
Cash & Cash Equivalents		2.8

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio

Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio managed by

Lazard Asset Management LLC vs. Russell Midcap Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year		Since Inception3
Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio—Class A		-5.13%		-0.66%		—		4.59%
Class B		-5.28%		-0.91%		4.30%		—
Class E		-5.27%		-0.82%		—		3.97%
Russell Midcap Index1		-1.55%		1.41%		6.99%		—

The performance of Class B shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹ The Russell Midcap Index is an unmanaged measure of performance of the 800 smallest companies in the Russell 1000 Index.

² “Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

³ Inception of the Class A shares is 1/2/2002. Inception of the Class B shares is 10/9/2001. Inception of the Class E shares is 4/1/2002. Index returns are based on an inception date of 10/9/2001.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A
Actual		0.78%	$	1,000.00	$	907.90	$	3.75
Hypothetical*		0.78%		1,000.00		1,021.27		3.97
Class B
Actual		1.03%	$	1,000.00	$	906.50	$	4.95
Hypothetical*		1.03%		1,000.00		1,020.01		5.24
Class E
Actual		0.93%	$	1,000.00	$	906.80	$	4.47
Hypothetical*		0.93%		1,000.00		1,020.51		4.74

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—94.9% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—1.9%
Rockwell Collins, Inc.		130,000	$	7,198,100
Auto Components—1.7%
Lear Corp.		155,800		6,200,840
Beverages—2.3%
Molson Coors Brewing Co. - Class B		193,800		8,438,052
Capital Markets—4.4%
Ameriprise Financial, Inc.		216,000		10,722,240
Invesco, Ltd.		281,400		5,653,326
				16,375,566
Chemicals—1.5%
Eastman Chemical Co.		145,000		5,663,700
Commercial Banks—2.8%
Fifth Third Bancorp.		423,700		5,389,464
Signature Bank* (a)		85,500		5,129,145
				10,518,609
Commercial Services & Supplies—2.1%
Corrections Corp. of America* (a)		379,100		7,722,267
Computers & Peripherals—3.5%
Lexmark International, Inc. - Class A		222,400		7,354,768
SanDisk Corp.*		111,000		5,462,310
				12,817,078
Construction & Engineering—0.7%
Foster Wheeler AG*		132,600		2,537,964
Containers & Packaging—0.8%
Ball Corp.		86,000		3,071,060
Diversified Consumer Services—1.1%
DeVry, Inc.		107,500		4,134,450
Electrical Equipment—2.4%
Thomas & Betts Corp.* (a)		159,500		8,708,700
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—1.0%
Ingram Micro, Inc. - Class A*		204,400		3,718,036
Energy Equipment & Services—3.5%
Cameron International Corp.*		71,200		3,502,328
Rowan Cos., Inc.*		183,300		5,559,489
Tidewater, Inc. (a)		76,700		3,781,310
				12,843,127
Food Products—3.1%
Campbell Soup Co. (a)		109,900	$	3,653,076
Ralcorp Holdings, Inc.* (a)		91,800		7,848,900
				11,501,976
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—2.4%
DENTSPLY International, Inc. (a)		108,000		3,778,920
Zimmer Holdings, Inc.*		92,800		4,957,376
				8,736,296
Health Care Providers & Services—2.2%
AMERIGROUP Corp.*		44,100		2,605,428
Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings*		64,200		5,519,274
				8,124,702
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—3.0%
Darden Restaurants, Inc. (a)		97,300		4,434,934
International Game Technology		398,100		6,847,320
				11,282,254
Household Durables—1.6%
Newell Rubbermaid, Inc.		375,500		6,064,325
Household Products—2.8%
Energizer Holdings, Inc.* (a)		132,300		10,250,604
Insurance—1.1%
PartnerRe, Ltd.		64,700		4,154,387
IT Services—2.8%
Amdocs, Ltd.*		251,900		7,186,707
Teradata Corp.*		62,900		3,051,279
				10,237,986
Life Sciences Tools & Services—1.0%
Waters Corp.*		48,400		3,584,020
Machinery—2.5%
Dover Corp.		161,600		9,380,880
Media—0.9%
Interpublic Group of Cos., Inc. (The)		326,100		3,172,953
Metals & Mining—2.3%
Cliffs Natural Resources, Inc.		67,900		4,233,565
Compass Minerals International, Inc. (a)		60,400		4,158,540
				8,392,105

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Multi-Utilities—5.6%
CMS Energy Corp. (a)		512,200	$	11,309,376
Wisconsin Energy Corp. (a)		269,200		9,411,232
				20,720,608
Multiline Retail—2.9%
Big Lots, Inc.*		165,800		6,260,608
Macy’s, Inc.		139,500		4,489,110
				10,749,718
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—4.5%
CONSOL Energy, Inc.		53,500		1,963,450
Energen Corp. (a)		111,500		5,575,000
Marathon Petroleum Corp.		106,000		3,528,740
Noble Energy, Inc.		59,300		5,597,327
				16,664,517
Pharmaceuticals—2.8%
Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. - Class A (a)		155,200		5,160,400
Warner Chilcott plc - Class A*		338,400		5,119,992
				10,280,392
Professional Services—2.1%
Equifax, Inc.		197,900		7,666,646
Real Estate Investment Trusts—6.7%
Duke Realty Corp. (a)		380,500		4,585,025
Kilroy Realty Corp. (a)		118,000		4,492,260
LaSalle Hotel Properties (a)		195,400		4,730,634
Macerich Co. (The) (a)		100,800		5,100,480
Tanger Factory Outlet Centers, Inc. (a)		205,900		6,036,988
				24,945,387
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—3.0%
Analog Devices, Inc.		104,500		3,739,010
Xilinx, Inc.		230,300		7,383,418
				11,122,428
Software—7.8%
Autodesk, Inc.*		158,800		4,816,404
BMC Software, Inc.*		124,100		4,067,998
Compuware Corp.*		351,300		2,922,816
Intuit, Inc.		114,900		6,042,591
Quest Software, Inc.* (a)		298,900		5,559,540
Symantec Corp.*		350,700		5,488,455
				28,897,804
Specialty Retail—4.1%
ANN, Inc.* (a)		172,100	$	4,264,638
AutoZone, Inc.*		7,900		2,567,263
Ross Stores, Inc.		176,400		8,384,292
				15,216,193
Total Common Stocks (Cost $352,142,459)				351,093,730
Preferred Stocks—1.7%
Transportation Infrastructure—1.7%
Better Place LLC, Series B * (b) (Cost—$3,539,700)		1,415,880		6,428,095
Short-Term Investments—12.6%
Mutual Funds—9.8%
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (c)		36,191,771		36,191,771
Repurchase Agreement—2.8%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $10,379,012 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $10,345,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage at 1.375% due 02/25/14 with a value of $10,588,976.	$	10,379,000		10,379,000
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $46,570,771)				46,570,771
Total Investments—109.2% (Cost $402,252,930#)				404,092,596
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(9.2)%				(34,052,766	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	370,039,830

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $403,717,665. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $20,499,583 and $(20,124,652), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $374,931 for federal income tax purposes.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities loaned was $38,104,301 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

amount of $36,191,771 and non-cash collateral with a value of $3,078,801. The cash collateral is invested in a money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The non-cash collateral received consists primarily of government securities and bank letters of credit, and are held for the benefit of the Portfolio at the Portfolio’s custodian. The Portfolio cannot repledge or resell this collateral. As such, this collateral is excluded from the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

(b) Security was valued in good faith under procedures approved by the Board of Trustees.

(c) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities lending transactions.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Total Common Stocks*	$	351,093,730	$	—	$	—	$	351,093,730
Total Preferred Stock*		—		—		6,428,095		6,428,095
Short-Term Investments
Mutual Funds		36,191,771		—		—		36,191,771
Repurchase Agreement		—		10,379,000		—		10,379,000
Total Short-Term Investments		36,191,771		10,379,000		—		46,570,771
Total Investments	$	387,285,501	$	10,379,000	$	6,428,095	$	404,092,596

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

Following is a reconciliation of Level 3 assets for which significant unobservable inputs were used to determine fair value:

Investments in Securities	Balance as of December 31, 2010		Change in Unrealized Appreciation		Balance as of December 31, 2011		Change in Unrealized Appreciation for Investments Still Held at December 31, 2011
Preferred Stock
Transportation Infrastructure	$	3,539,700	$	2,888,395	$	6,428,095	$	2,888,395

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)(b)	$	393,713,596
Repurchase Agreement		10,379,000
Cash		599
Receivable for investments sold		3,737,865
Receivable for shares sold		95,001
Dividends receivable		235,465
Total assets		408,161,526
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		1,313,090
Shares redeemed		230,711
Collateral for securities loaned		36,191,771
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		219,533
Distribution and service fees - Class B		53,205
Distribution and service fees - Class E		2,884
Administration fees		1,764
Custodian and accounting fees		3,430
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,068
Other expenses		80,240
Total liabilities		38,121,696
Net Assets	$	370,039,830
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	579,786,965
Accumulated net realized loss		(213,413,094	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments		1,839,666
Undistributed net investment income		1,826,293
Net Assets	$	370,039,830
Net Assets
Class A	$	96,097,727
Class B		251,277,733
Class E		22,664,370
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		8,948,776
Class B		23,571,041
Class E		2,117,454
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	10.74
Class B		10.66
Class E		10.70

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreement, was $391,873,930.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $38,104,301.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends	$	6,570,462
Interest (a)		203,774
Total investment income		6,774,236
Expenses
Management fees		3,742,259
Administration fees		29,621
Custodian and accounting fees		54,264
Distribution and service fees - Class B		663,450
Distribution and service fees - Class E		38,600
Audit and tax services		33,062
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Shareholder reporting		89,887
Insurance		1,211
Miscellaneous		8,784
Total expenses		4,729,848
Less broker commission recapture		(157,664	)
Net expenses		4,572,184
Net investment income		2,202,052
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments and Futures Contracts
Net realized gain on:
Investments		139,986,242
Futures contracts		4,811,519
Net realized gain on investments and futures contracts		144,797,761
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments		(137,013,477	)
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments and futures contracts		7,784,284
Net Increase in Net Assets from Operations	$	9,986,336

(a) Includes net income on securities loaned of $201,835.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	2,202,052		$	7,231,694
Net realized gain on investments and futures contracts		144,797,761			76,196,090
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments		(137,013,477	)		58,146,369
Net increase in net assets resulting from operations		9,986,336			141,574,153
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(4,806,488	)		(3,870,774	)
Class B		(1,936,487	)		(2,002,291	)
Class E		(212,681	)		(206,392	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(6,955,656	)		(6,079,457	)
Net increase (decrease) in net assets from capital share transactions		(442,779,098	)		96,208,033
Net Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets		(439,748,418	)		231,702,729
Net assets at beginning of period		809,788,248			578,085,519
Net assets at end of period	$	370,039,830		$	809,788,248
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	1,826,293		$	6,740,154

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		2,469,122		$	28,967,265			12,985,315		$	133,110,372
Reinvestments		399,874			4,806,488			373,627			3,870,774
Redemptions		(39,044,689	)		(473,535,794	)		(5,035,523	)		(49,739,062	)
Net increase (decrease)		(36,175,693	)	$	(439,762,041	)		8,323,419		$	87,242,084
Class B
Sales		4,130,468		$	46,374,490			4,394,036		$	43,915,582
Reinvestments		162,049			1,936,487			194,397			2,002,291
Redemptions		(4,232,217	)		(47,307,209	)		(3,898,293	)		(38,607,238	)
Net increase		60,300		$	1,003,768			690,140		$	7,310,635
Class E
Sales		193,371		$	2,203,347			762,612		$	7,436,471
Reinvestments		17,738			212,681			19,980			206,392
Redemptions		(568,792	)		(6,436,853	)		(600,285	)		(5,987,549	)
Net increase (decrease)		(357,683	)	$	(4,020,825	)		182,307		$	1,655,314
Increase (decrease) derived from capital shares transactions				$	(442,779,098	)				$	96,208,033

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	11.42		$	9.36		$	6.93		$	12.17		$	13.74
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.05			0.12			0.09			0.17			0.13
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.62	)		2.05			2.45			(4.48	)		(0.33	)
Total from investment operations		(0.57	)		2.17			2.54			(4.31	)		(0.20	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.11	)		(0.11	)		(0.11	)		(0.13	)		(0.09	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.80	)		(1.28	)
Total distributions		(0.11	)		(0.11	)		(0.11	)		(0.93	)		(1.37	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.74		$	11.42		$	9.36		$	6.93		$	12.17
Total Return (%)		(5.13	)		23.25			37.14			(38.15	)		(2.47	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.75			0.73			0.74			0.74			0.76
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.75			0.73			0.74			0.72			0.75
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.43			1.18			1.17			1.80			0.96
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		84.9			73.8			75.2			97.4			89.9
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	96.1		$	515.1		$	344.5		$	575.4		$	550.8
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	11.33		$	9.30		$	6.89		$	12.10		$	13.65
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.04			0.09			0.07			0.15			0.09
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.63	)		2.03			2.43			(4.46	)		(0.31	)
Total from investment operations		(0.59	)		2.12			2.50			(4.31	)		(0.22	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.08	)		(0.09	)		(0.09	)		(0.10	)		(0.05	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.80	)		(1.28	)
Total distributions		(0.08	)		(0.09	)		(0.09	)		(0.90	)		(1.33	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.66		$	11.33		$	9.30		$	6.89		$	12.10
Total Return (%)		(5.28	)		22.86			36.76			(38.30	)		(2.71	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.00			0.98			0.99			0.99			1.00
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		1.00			0.98			0.99			0.97			0.99
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.39			0.90			0.91			1.50			0.67
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		84.9			73.8			75.2			97.4			89.9
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	251.3		$	266.5		$	212.2		$	150.0		$	243.6

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	11.38		$	9.33		$	6.91		$	12.13		$	13.69
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.05			0.10			0.08			0.16			0.10
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.64	)		2.04			2.43			(4.47	)		(0.31	)
Total from investment operations		(0.59	)		2.14			2.51			(4.31	)		(0.21	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.09	)		(0.09	)		(0.09	)		(0.11	)		(0.07	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.80	)		(1.28	)
Total distributions		(0.09	)		(0.09	)		(0.09	)		(0.91	)		(1.35	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.70		$	11.38		$	9.33		$	6.91		$	12.13
Total Return (%)		(5.27	)		23.07			36.90			(38.24	)		(2.64	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.90			0.88			0.89			0.89			0.90
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.90			0.88			0.89			0.88			0.89
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.48			1.03			1.01			1.58			0.76
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		84.9			73.8			75.2			97.4			89.9
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	22.7		$	28.2		$	21.4		$	18.0		$	38.2

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Advisor, if applicable.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A, B and E Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to broker commission recapture, futures transactions, foreign currency transactions, deferred trustees’ compensation, capital loss carryforwards, Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Securities Lending - The Portfolio may lend its portfolio securities to certain qualified brokers who borrow securities in order to complete certain securities transactions. By lending its portfolio securities, the Portfolio attempts to increase its net investment income through the receipt of income on the loaned securities. Any gain or loss in the market price of the loaned securities that might occur and any interest earned or dividends declared during the term of the loan would accrue to the account of the Portfolio.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

The Trust has entered into a securities lending arrangement with the custodian, State Street Bank and Trust Company (the “custodian”). Under this arrangement, the custodian is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral at least equal to 102% of the market value of the loaned

securities (105% for foreign equity securities), at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities must be maintained for the duration of the loan. Cash collateral is generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The Navigator Portfolio is a registered money market fund which invests in a variety of high quality U.S. dollar-denominated instruments. If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower shall be required to deliver, by the close of business on the following business day, an additional amount of collateral so that the total amount of posted collateral equals at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of net income (income after the deduction of expenses and fees of the Navigator Portfolio) on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the custodian and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by U.S. Treasuries, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the custodian. The risks associated with lending portfolio securities include, but are not limited to, possible delays in receiving additional collateral or in the recovery of the loaned securities, possible loss of rights in the collateral should the borrower fail financially, as well as risk of loss in the value of the collateral or the value of the investments made with the collateral. Net interest income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2011 is disclosed in the footnotes to the Statement of Operations. Any outstanding loans by the Portfolio at December 31, 2011 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

Directed Brokerage Agreement - The Trust has entered into a directed brokerage arrangement with State Street Global Markets (“SSGM”). Under this arrangement, the Portfolio directs certain trades to SSGM in return for a recapture credit. SSGM issues a cash rebate to the Portfolio. Amounts paid to the Portfolio are shown separately as broker commission recapture on the Statement of Operations of the Portfolio. Additionally, these amounts have been excluded from the calculation of the ratio of net expenses to average net assets presented in the Financial Highlights for each share class.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with Lazard Asset Management LLC (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$3,742,259		0.70	%	First $500 Million
		0.675	%	$500 Million to $1 Billion
		0.60	%	Over $1 Billion

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Distribution Agreements and Plans - The Trust has distribution agreements with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A, Class B and Class E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B and Class E distribution plans provide that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% and 0.25%, respectively, of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B and Class E Shares. However, under the Class B and Class E distribution agreements, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B and Class E distribution plans are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% and 0.15% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares, respectively. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B and Class E distribution plans and distribution agreements, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B and Class E Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. as designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$—	$	436,090,079	$	—	$	860,619,250

During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio engaged in security sale transactions with other affiliated portfolios. These sale transactions amounted to $41,405,199 and resulted in a realized gain of $8,190,399.

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments

Futures Contracts - The Portfolio may buy and sell futures contracts (on recognized exchanges) as a hedge, to maintain investment exposure to a target asset class or to enhance return. The Portfolio may be subject to fluctuations in equity prices, interest rates, and foreign currency exchange rates in the normal course of pursuing its investment objective. Futures contracts are standardized agreements to buy or sell a security, or deliver a final cash settlement price in connection with an index, interest rate, currency, or other asset. The Portfolio must deposit an amount (“initial margin”) equal to a certain percentage of the face value of the futures contract. The initial margin may be in the form of cash or securities which is returned when the Portfolio’s obligations under the contract have been satisfied. If cash is deposited as the initial margin, it is shown as “restricted cash” on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Futures contracts are marked-to-market daily and subsequent payments (“variation margin”) are made or received by the Portfolio depending on the daily fluctuations in the value of the futures contract. These amounts are reflected as receivables or payables on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Risks of entering into futures contracts (and related options) include the possibility that the market for these instruments may be illiquid and that a change in the value of the contract or option may not correlate perfectly with changes in the value of the underlying instrument. Futures contracts are exchange traded and the exchange’s clearinghouse, as counterparty to all exchange traded futures, guarantees the futures contracts against default.

During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio entered into equity index futures contracts which were subject to equity price risk. During the period April 25 through April 28, 2011, the Portfolio had bought and sold $366,627,128 in equity index futures contracts. At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not have any open futures contracts. For the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had realized gains in the amount of $4,811,519 which are shown under Net realized gain on futures contracts in the Statement of Operations.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

7. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$6,955,656	$	6,079,457	$	—	$	—	$	6,955,656	$	6,079,457

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards			Total
$1,851,360	$	—	$	374,931	$	(211,948,358	)	$	(209,722,067	)

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses.

As of December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and the pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards and expiration dates were as follows:

Expiring 12/31/2016	Expiring 12/31/2017		Total
$39,276,754	$	172,671,604	$	211,948,358

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements - continued

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 23, 2012

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio underperformed the median of its Performance Universe for the one-, three- and five- year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board also considered that the Portfolio underperformed its Lipper Index for the one- and five-year periods ended June 30, 2011, and outperformed its Lipper Index for the three-year period ended June 30, 2011. The Board also considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Russell Midcap Index, for the one-, three- and five- year periods ended September 30, 2011. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance, including the continued monitoring of the Portfolio. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s moderate underperformance was being reasonably addressed and/or monitored.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the Expense Group median, Expense Universe median, and Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were above the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were above the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

25

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the Lazard Mid Cap Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee and sub-advisory fee each contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board further considered that the Portfolio’s management fees were below the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

26

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio

Managed by ClearBridge Advisors, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A, B, and E shares of the Legg Mason Clearbridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio returned 3.55%, 3.25%, and 3.49%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Russell 3000 Growth Index¹, returned 2.18%.

Market Environment/Conditions

Despite significant volatility, the equity markets ended 2011 essentially flat on the year, with the S&P 500 closing down less than 1% for the year (excluding dividends). The first half of the year saw stocks rally sharply with major averages hitting multi-year highs in May before retreating sharply into August amid global economic fears. After testing the August lows in early October, the markets rebounded toward the end of the year due to improving economic conditions and increased investor optimism that the worst of the macro fears were either priced into stocks or behind us.

We remain convinced that the severe correction that the broad market experienced, which reached bottom in early August, was a pause to refresh the primary bull market that we think has been in place since early 2009. Typically, rising markets lead to improving investor confidence, yet while the S&P 500 Index is more than 80% above its 2009 lows, investor sentiment ranges somewhere between complacency and outright pessimism. This has led to a highly correlated market, with the headlines dominating the market’s direction.

Undervalued companies with strong balance sheets have the opportunity to increase share buyback programs, merger and acquisition deal activity, or both. The discrepancy between what a growth company is worth to a third party, and where many stocks are trading in the open market, is sizeable. This has led to large premiums (over public share price) in deals that have been announced. Cash on corporate balance sheets in the U.S. remains at record levels (approaching $3 trillion). We believe the limiting factor holding this wave of consolidation in check has been a lack of confidence in market conditions.

Liquidity remains high, as balance sheets are generally healthy and short-term interest rates remain historically low. Stock valuations, in general, are still very low by historical standards, especially in comparison to fixed-income assets. At the same time, equity risk premiums remain at a 60-year high, reflecting investor distaste for stocks and concerns over the macroeconomic environment. In conclusion, we maintain our bottom-up, benchmark-agnostic and fundamentals-focused approach to portfolio management.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

Overall stock selection and overall sector allocation both made positive contributions to the Portfolio’s performance relative to the benchmark index during the year. Stock selection in the Health Care and Industrials sectors helped the Portfolio’s relative performance as did underweight positions in the Materials, Industrials and Information Technology (IT) sectors and an overweight position in the Health Care sector.

Leading contributors to Portfolio performance included Biogen Idec, Inc., UnitedHealth Group, Inc., Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Canada) and Amgen, Inc., all in the Health Care sector, and Comcast Corp. in the Consumer Discretionary sector.

Stock selection in the IT, Energy, Consumer Discretionary and Materials sectors detracted from the Portfolio’s relative performance, as did an underweight position in the Consumer Staples sector (no holdings).

Leading individual detractors from Portfolio performance included Weatherford International, Ltd. (Switzerland) in the Energy sector, Cablevision Systems Corp. in the Consumer Discretionary sector, Broadcom Corp. and Cree, Inc. in the IT sector and Human Genome Sciences, Inc. in the Health Care sector.

During 2011, the Portfolio initiated new positions in AMC Networks, Inc. in the Consumer Discretionary sector, Advent Software, Inc., Citrix Systems, Inc. and Standard Microsystems Corp. in the IT sector and Human Genome Sciences, Inc. and ImmunoGen, Inc. in the Health Care sector. The Portfolio closed out positions in DSP Group Inc. and Nokia Corp. (Finland) in the IT sector and Genzyme Corp. in the Health Care sector.

Our performance, much like the market, was choppy over 2011. After two strong years in 2009 and 2010, solid results continued into the first half of the year on both an absolute and relative basis. As the macroeconomic headlines turned negative in the third quarter and equity correlations neared record highs, we saw many of our holdings sell off sharply. Performance recovered strongly in the final three months of the year, leaving our Portfolio ahead of the benchmark for the year. Despite the volatility, many of our companies made significant progress fundamentally throughout the year, growing both top and bottom lines and improving their balance sheets.

During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio’s positioning with regard to sector weightings was consistent, with the largest allocations remaining in the Health Care (35.72%), Energy (19.11%), Consumer Discretionary (16.57%) Information Technology (14.69%), Industrials (8.46%) and Materials (1.63%) sectors. The Portfolio had no holdings in the Consumer Staples, Financials, Telecommunications Services and Utilities sectors. As always, the Portfolio’s sector allocations are largely a function of our bottom-up stock selection process.

At the end of 2011, we feel very comfortable with our Portfolio. While many investors have become short sighted and hyper-focused on the macroeconomic situation, we feel that much of the news is backward looking and already reflected in the stock prices at current valuation levels. We continue to be focused on finding companies with unique

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio

Managed by ClearBridge Advisors, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

competitive advantages over competition and those with balance sheet strengths that allow them to invest during downturns. Whereas highly correlated markets can be frustrating in the shorter term, they tend to produce inefficiencies that can be exploited by those with longer-term investment time horizons. We were able to take advantage of the market’s downside volatility to hold and/or increase positions in businesses that we believe have the opportunity to grow significantly, both in the short and long term.

The Portfolio’s time-tested approach has navigated many volatile markets. We continue to be especially diligent at this time in focusing on the fundamentals of the companies that we hold and reiterating our conviction in continuing to maintain each investment. Our goal continues to be focusing on what we feel are dominant franchises with primarily self-financing business models that are best able to grow earnings/cash flows on a sustainable basis.

Richard Freeman, Senior Portfolio Manager

Evan Bauman, Portfolio Manager

ClearBridge Advisors, LLC

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Biogen Idec, Inc.		9.9
UnitedHealth Group, Inc.		9.0
Anadarko Petroleum Corp.		8.2
Amgen, Inc.		5.8
Comcast Corp. - Special Class A		5.0
Weatherford International, Ltd.		4.6
Forest Laboratories, Inc.		3.7
Core Laboratories N.V.		3.6
SanDisk Corp.		3.1
Tyco International, Ltd.		2.7

Top Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Non-Cyclical		35.6
Energy		19.0
Communications		15.5
Technology		12.2
Industrials		11.0
Cash & Cash Equivalents		3.8
Basic Materials		1.6
Cyclical		1.3

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio

Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio managed by

ClearBridge Advisors, LLC vs. Russell 3000 Growth Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year		Since Inception3
Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio—Class A		3.55%		1.43%		—		2.16%
Class B		3.25%		1.16%		1.93%		—
Class E		3.49%		1.27%		—		5.55%
Russell 3000 Growth Index1		2.18%		2.46%		2.74%		—

The performance of Class B shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹ The Russell 3000 Growth Index measures the performance of those Russell 3000 Index companies with higher price-to-book ratios and higher forecasted growth values.

² “Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

³ Inception of Class A shares is 1/2/2002. Inception of Class B shares is 2/12/2001. Inception of Class E shares is 4/17/2003. Index returns are based on an inception date of 2/12/2001.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A
Actual		0.64%	$	1,000.00	$	917.70	$	3.09
Hypothetical*		0.64%		1,000.00		1,021.97		3.26
Class B
Actual		0.89%	$	1,000.00	$	916.00	$	4.30
Hypothetical*		0.89%		1,000.00		1,020.71		4.53
Class E
Actual		0.79%	$	1,000.00	$	916.70	$	3.82
Hypothetical*		0.79%		1,000.00		1,021.22		4.02

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—96.4% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—2.0%
L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc.		329,800	$	21,991,064
Biotechnology—17.8%
Amgen, Inc.		990,700		63,612,847
Biogen Idec, Inc.*		987,700		108,696,385
BioMimetic Therapeutics, Inc.* (a)		229,340		653,619
Human Genome Sciences, Inc.* (a)		635,770		4,698,340
ImmunoGen, Inc.* (a)		192,900		2,233,782
Isis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.* (a)		188,435		1,358,617
Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.*		425,172		14,119,962
				195,373,552
Communications Equipment—0.1%
Arris Group, Inc.* (a)		122,915		1,329,940
Computers & Peripherals—4.8%
SanDisk Corp.*		695,090		34,205,379
Seagate Technology plc		1,113,300		18,258,120
				52,463,499
Construction & Engineering—1.3%
Fluor Corp.		284,910		14,316,728
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—2.3%
Dolby Laboratories, Inc. - Class A*		230,000		7,017,300
TE Connectivity, Ltd.		589,325		18,157,103
				25,174,403
Energy Equipment & Services—10.9%
Core Laboratories N.V.		350,000		39,882,500
National Oilwell Varco, Inc.		417,778		28,404,726
Weatherford International, Ltd.*		3,472,500		50,837,400
				119,124,626
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—2.2%
Covidien plc		549,825		24,747,623
Health Care Providers & Services—9.0%
UnitedHealth Group, Inc.		1,939,700		98,303,996
Industrial Conglomerates—2.7%
Tyco International, Ltd.		639,325		29,862,871
Internet & Catalog Retail—1.3%
Liberty Media Corp. - Interactive - Class A*		854,200		13,850,853
Machinery—2.7%
Pall Corp.		510,000		29,146,500
Media—15.2%
AMC Networks, Inc. - Class A* (a)		378,125	$	14,209,938
Cablevision Systems Corp. - Class A		1,512,500		21,507,750
CBS Corp. - Class B		162,600		4,412,964
Comcast Corp. - Class A (a)		392,000		9,294,320
Comcast Corp. - Special Class A		2,315,600		54,555,536
DIRECTV - Class A*		485,575		20,763,187
Liberty Global, Inc. - Class A*		139,200		5,711,376
Liberty Media Corp. - Liberty Capital - Class A*		223,898		17,475,239
Madison Square Garden, Inc. (The) - Class A*		412,850		11,824,024
Viacom, Inc. - Class B		159,900		7,261,059
				167,015,393
Metals & Mining—1.6%
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc.		348,700		12,828,673
Nucor Corp. (a)		126,500		5,005,605
				17,834,278
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—8.2%
Anadarko Petroleum Corp.		1,184,960		90,447,997
Pharmaceuticals—6.7%
Forest Laboratories, Inc.*		1,326,200		40,130,812
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. (ADR)		144,600		5,836,056
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.*		586,870		27,400,960
				73,367,828
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—4.9%
Broadcom Corp. - Class A*		872,445		25,614,985
Cirrus Logic, Inc.* (a)		171,400		2,716,690
Cree, Inc.* (a)		345,400		7,612,616
Intel Corp.		579,648		14,056,464
Standard Microsystems Corp.* (a)		137,800		3,551,106
				53,551,861
Software—2.6%
Advent Software, Inc.* (a)		8,700		211,932
Autodesk, Inc.*		407,500		12,359,475
Citrix Systems, Inc.*		264,300		16,048,296
				28,619,703
Specialty Retail—0.1%
Charming Shoppes, Inc.* (a)		177,100		867,790
Total Common Stocks (Cost $931,670,285)				1,057,390,505

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Short-Term Investments—6.7%

Security Description	Shares/Par Amount		Value
Mutual Funds—2.8%
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (b)		30,525,166	$	30,525,166
Repurchase Agreement—3.9%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $42,730,047 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $42,010,000 U.S. Treasury Note at 1.750% due 01/31/14 with a value of $43,585,375.	$	42,730,000		42,730,000
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $73,255,166)				73,255,166
Total Investments—103.1% (Cost $1,004,925,451#)				1,130,645,671
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(3.1)%				(34,144,415	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	1,096,501,256

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $1,005,125,989. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $197,396,613 and $(71,876,931), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $125,519,682 for federal income tax purposes.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities loaned was $29,808,119 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $30,525,166. The cash collateral is invested in a money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian.

(b) Represents investment of collateral received from securities lending transactions

(ADR)— An American Depositary Receipt is a certificate issued by a custodian bank representing the right to receive securities of the foreign issuer described. Trading on exchanges not located in the United States or Canada significantly influences the value of ADRs.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio's own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio's investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Total Common Stocks*	$	1,057,390,505	$	—	$	—	$	1,057,390,505
Short-Term Investments
Mutual Funds		30,525,166		—		—		30,525,166
Repurchase Agreement		—		42,730,000		—		42,730,000
Total Short-Term Investments		30,525,166		42,730,000		—		73,255,166
Total Investments	$	1,087,915,671	$	42,730,000	$	—	$	1,130,645,671

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)(b)	$	1,087,915,671
Repurchase Agreement		42,730,000
Cash		395
Receivable for investments sold		7,386,721
Receivable for shares sold		297,517
Dividends receivable		430,126
Interest receivable		24
Total assets		1,138,760,454
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		10,599,370
Shares redeemed		385,857
Collateral for securities loaned		30,525,166
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		571,673
Distribution and service fees - Class B		88,141
Distribution and service fees - Class E		2,200
Administration fees		4,900
Custodian and accounting fees		6,175
Deferred trustees’ fees		46,031
Other expenses		29,685
Total liabilities		42,259,198
Net Assets	$	1,096,501,256
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	2,134,234,870
Accumulated net realized loss		(1,165,017,644	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments		125,720,220
Undistributed net investment income		1,563,810
Net Assets	$	1,096,501,256
Net Assets
Class A	$	657,893,759
Class B		421,416,684
Class E		17,190,813
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		84,289,838
Class B		55,246,131
Class E		2,234,003
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	7.81
Class B		7.63
Class E		7.70

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreement, was $962,195,451.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $29,808,119.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	9,107,277
Interest (b)		164,796
Total investment income		9,272,073
Expenses
Management fees		6,273,162
Administration fees		51,975
Custodian and accounting fees		78,275
Distribution and service fees - Class B		872,099
Distribution and service fees - Class E		19,843
Audit and tax services		33,377
Legal		31,978
Trustees’ fees and expenses		36,481
Shareholder reporting		229
Insurance		4,421
Miscellaneous		7,807
Total expenses		7,409,647
Less broker commission recapture		(27,425	)
Net expenses		7,382,222
Net investment income		1,889,851
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments
Net realized gain on investments		4,064,992
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments		(1,147,693	)
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments		2,917,299
Net Increase in Net Assets from Operations	$	4,807,150

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $99,668.

(b) Includes net income on securities loaned of $159,625.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	1,889,851		$	862,170
Net realized gain (loss) on investments		4,064,992			(13,920,384	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments		(1,147,693	)		160,944,316
Net increase in net assets resulting from operations		4,807,150			147,886,102
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(664,432	)		(319,182	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(664,432	)		(319,182	)
Net increase (decrease) in net assets from capital share transactions		306,433,964			(11,558,923	)
Net Increase in Net Assets		310,576,682			136,007,997
Net assets at beginning of period		785,924,574			649,916,577
Net assets at end of period	$	1,096,501,256		$	785,924,574
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	1,563,810		$	834,080

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		25,959,927		$	215,759,091			5,496,033		$	36,330,148
Shares issued through acquisition		2,902,620			24,730,316			—			—
Reinvestments		80,245			664,432			48,288			319,182
Redemptions		(22,158,673	)		(183,145,369	)		(9,138,460	)		(55,944,200	)
Net increase (decrease)		6,784,119		$	58,008,470			(3,594,139	)	$	(19,294,870	)
Class B
Sales		17,411,881		$	134,563,236			6,405,914		$	41,621,647
Shares issued through acquisition		20,821,320			173,649,815			—			—
Redemptions		(9,703,410	)		(74,924,554	)		(5,296,420	)		(33,509,757	)
Net increase		28,529,791		$	233,288,497			1,109,494		$	8,111,890
Class E
Sales		1,022,547		$	8,348,405			128,535		$	832,931
Shares issued through acquisition		1,320,788			11,107,831			—			—
Redemptions		(551,821	)		(4,319,239	)		(190,994	)		(1,208,874	)
Net increase (decrease)		1,791,514		$	15,136,997			(62,459	)	$	(375,943	)
Increase (decrease) derived from capital shares transactions				$	306,433,964					$	(11,558,923	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	7.55		$	6.09		$	4.57		$	7.54		$	8.09
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.02			0.01			0.00	+		0.01			0.01
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		0.25			1.45			1.53			(2.93	)		0.22
Total from investment operations		0.27			1.46			1.53			(2.92	)		0.23
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.01	)		(0.00	)++		(0.01	)		(0.00	)++		(0.02	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.05	)		(0.76	)
Total distributions		(0.01	)		(0.00	)++		(0.01	)		(0.05	)		(0.78	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	7.81		$	7.55		$	6.09		$	4.57		$	7.54
Total Return (%)		3.55			24.05			33.45			(38.95	)		2.60
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.65			0.68			0.67			0.65			0.67
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.27			0.19			0.11			0.13			0.07
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		6.4			1.1			2.5			6.2			0.7
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	657.9		$	585.2		$	493.9		$	580.9		$	874.6
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	7.39		$	5.97		$	4.49		$	7.42		$	7.98
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (loss)(a)		0.00	+		0.00	+		(0.01	)		(0.01	)		(0.01	)
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		0.24			1.42			1.49			(2.87	)		0.21
Total from investment operations		0.24			1.42			1.48			(2.88	)		0.20
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		0.00			0.00			0.00			0.00			0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.05	)		(0.76	)
Total distributions		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.05	)		(0.76	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	7.63		$	7.39		$	5.97		$	4.49		$	7.42
Total Return (%)		3.25			23.79			32.96			(39.05	)		2.27
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.90			0.93			0.92			0.90			0.92
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.04			(0.06	)		(0.16	)		(0.13	)		(0.18	)
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		6.4			1.1			2.5			6.2			0.7
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	421.4		$	197.5		$	152.9		$	120.4		$	222.3

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011		2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	7.44	$	6.01		$	4.51		$	7.45		$	8.01
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (loss)(a)		0.01		0.00	+		(0.00	)+		(0.00	)+		(0.01	)
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		0.25		1.43			1.50			(2.89	)		0.21
Total from investment operations		0.26		1.43			1.50			(2.89	)		0.20
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		0.00		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.00	)++
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00		0.00			0.00			(0.05	)		(0.76	)
Total distributions		0.00		0.00			0.00			(0.05	)		(0.76	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	7.70	$	7.44		$	6.01		$	4.51		$	7.45
Total Return (%)		3.49		23.79			33.26			(39.03	)		2.32
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.80		0.83			0.82			0.80			0.82
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.18		0.00			(0.06	)		(0.03	)		(0.08	)
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		6.4		1.1			2.5			6.2			0.7
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	17.2	$	3.3		$	3.0		$	2.5		$	4.6

+ Net investment income was less than $0.01.

++ Distributions from net investment income were less than $0.01.

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is non-diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A, B and E Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to broker commission recapture, deferred trustees’ compensation, capital loss carryforwards and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Securities Lending - The Portfolio may lend its portfolio securities to certain qualified brokers who borrow securities in order to complete certain securities transactions. By lending its portfolio securities, the Portfolio attempts to increase its net investment income through the receipt of income on the loaned securities. Any gain or loss in the market price of the loaned securities that might occur and any interest earned or dividends declared during the term of the loan would accrue to the account of the Portfolio.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

The Trust has entered into a securities lending arrangement with the custodian, State Street Bank and Trust Company (the “custodian”). Under this arrangement, the custodian is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral at least equal to 102% of the market value of the loaned securities (105% for foreign equity securities), at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities must be maintained for the duration of the loan. Cash collateral is generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The Navigator Portfolio is a registered money market fund which invests in a variety of high quality U.S. dollar-denominated instruments. If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower shall be required to deliver, by the close of business on the following business day, an additional amount of collateral so that the total amount of posted collateral equals at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of net income (income after the deduction of expenses and fees of the Navigator Portfolio) on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the custodian and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by U.S. Treasuries, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the custodian. The risks associated with lending portfolio securities include, but are not limited to, possible delays in receiving additional collateral or in the recovery of the loaned securities, possible loss of rights in the collateral should the borrower fail financially, as well as risk of loss in the value of the collateral or the value of the investments made with the collateral. Net interest income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2011 is disclosed in the footnotes to the Statement of Operations. Any outstanding loans by the Portfolio at December 31, 2011 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

Directed Brokerage Agreement - The Trust has entered into a directed brokerage arrangement with State Street Global Markets (“SSGM”). Under this arrangement, the Portfolio directs certain trades to SSGM in return for a recapture credit. SSGM issues a cash rebate to the Portfolio. Amounts paid to the Portfolio are shown separately as broker commission recapture on the Statement of Operations of the Portfolio. Additionally, these amounts have been excluded from the calculation of the ratio of net expenses to average net assets presented in the Financial Highlights for each share class.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with ClearBridge Advisors, LLC (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$6,273,162		0.65	%	First $500 Million
		0.60	%	$500 Million to $1 Billion
		0.55	%	$1 Billion to $2 Billion
		0.50	%	Over $2 Billion

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Distribution Agreements and Plans - The Trust has distribution agreements with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A, Class B and Class E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B and Class E distribution plans provide that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% and 0.25%, respectively, of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B and Class E Shares. However, under the Class B and Class E distribution agreements, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B and Class E distribution plans are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% and 0.15% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares, respectively. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B and Class E distribution plans and distribution agreements, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B and Class E Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. as designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$—	$	164,876,922	$	—	$	62,380,966

During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio engaged in security purchase transactions with other affiliated portfolios. These purchase transactions amounted to $12,044,800.

With respect to the Portfolio’s merger with Legg Mason Value Equity Portfolio (Note 7) on April 29, 2011, the Portfolio acquired securities with a cost of $195,398,974.

5. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

7. Acquisition

At the close of business on April 29, 2011, the Portfolio, with aggregate Class A, Class B and Class E net assets of $690,422,921, $266,377,246 and $3,993,204 respectively, acquired all of the assets and liabilities of Legg Mason Value Equity Portfolio of the Met Investors Series Trust (“Legg Mason Value Equity”). The acquisition was accomplished by a tax-free exchange of 2,902,619 Class A shares of the Portfolio (valued at $24,730,316) for 3,555,394 Class A shares of Legg Mason Value Equity; 20,821,321 Class B shares of the Portfolio (valued at $173,649,815) for 24,981,757 of Class B shares of Legg Mason Value Equity; and 1,320,788 Class E shares of the Portfolio (value at $11,107,831) for 1,596,251 of Class E shares of Legg Mason Value Equity. Legg Mason Value Equity then distributed the Class A, B and E shares of the Portfolio that it received from the Portfolio to its shareholders by class. The transaction was part of a restructuring designed to eliminate the offering of overlapping Portfolios in the MetLife, Inc. families of funds with similar investment objectives and similar investment strategies that serve as funding vehicles for insurance contracts that are offered by affiliates of MetLife. The reorganization was proposed because Legg Mason Value Equity had experienced a significant decline in assets, which, if it continued, would affect the Portfolio’s ability to maintain certain operational efficiencies. Legg Mason Value Equity’s net assets on April 29, 2011, were $24,730,316, $173,649,815 and $11,107,831 for Class A, Class B and Class E shares, respectively, including investments valued at $203,440,228 with a cost basis of $195,398,974. For financial reporting purposes, assets received and shares issued by the Portfolio were recorded at fair value; however, the cost basis of the investments received by the Portfolio from Legg Mason Value Equity were carried forward to align ongoing reporting of the Portfolio’s realized and unrealized gains and losses with amounts distributable to shareholders for tax purposes. The Portfolio acquired $(968,634,364) in capital loss carry forwards from Legg Mason Value Equity.

The net assets of the Portfolio immediately after the acquisition were $1,170,281,333, which included $8,041,253 of acquired unrealized appreciation and $22,597 of acquired distributions in excess of net investment income.

Assuming the acquisition had been completed on January 1, 2011, the Portfolio’s pro-forma results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2011 are as follows:

(Unaudited)
Net Investment income	$	2,064,542	(a)
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on Investments		46,766,506	(b)
Net increase in assets from operations	$	48,831,048

Because the combined investment portfolios have been managed as a single integrated portfolio since the acquisition was completed, it is not practicable to separate the amounts of revenue and earnings of Legg Mason Value Equity that have been included in the Portfolio’s Statement of Operations since April 29, 2011.

(a) $1,889,851 as reported plus $(22,597) Legg Mason Value Equity pre-merger, plus $79,285 in lower advisory fees, plus $118,003 of pro-forma eliminated other expenses.

(b) $2,917,299 as reported plus $43,849,207 Legg Mason Value Equity pre-merger.

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$664,432	$	319,182	$	—	$	—	$	664,432	$	319,182

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards			Total
$1,609,841	$	—	$	125,519,682	$	(1,164,817,106	)	$	(1,037,687,583	)

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the "Act"), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

8. Income Tax Information - continued

As of December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and the pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards and expiration dates were as follows:

Expiring 12/31/2015	Expiring 12/31/2016			Expiring 12/31/2017		Expiring 12/31/2018		Total
$360,773,668*	$	659,613,130	*	$	130,530,096	$	13,900,212	$	1,164,817,106

* The Portfolio acquired capital losses in its merger with Legg Mason Value Equity Portfolio on April 29, 2011.

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 23, 2012

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5  Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5  Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and Lipper Index for the one- and three- year periods ended June 30, 2011, and underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and Lipper Index for the five-year period ended June 30, 2011. The Board further considered that the Portfolio outperformed its benchmark, the Russell 3000 Growth Index, for the one- and three- year periods ended September 30, 2011, and underperformed its benchmark for the five- year period ended September 30, 2011. The Board noted that the prior sub-adviser was replaced on October 1, 2006, and therefore, the longer term performance of the Portfolio reflected, in part, the performance of the Portfolio’s prior sub-adviser. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s performance was satisfactory.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the Expense Group median, the Expense Universe median and the Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were above the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee and sub-advisory fee each contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s management fees are below the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

25

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio

Managed by Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P.

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A and B shares of the Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio returned -1.25% and -1.48%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmarks, the MSCI World Index¹ and the Citigroup World Government Bond Index² (WGBI), returned -5.54% and 6.35%, respectively. A blend of the MSCI World Index¹ (60%) and the Citigroup WGBI² (40%), returned -0.63%.

Market Environment/Conditions

Throughout 2011, the global capital markets have absorbed unrest in the Middle East, a major earthquake and devastating tsunami, a possible Chinese slowdown, political uncertainty in the United States (“U.S.”), and the European sovereign debt crisis. The first half of the year was positive for riskier assets as opposed to the second half of the year when investor sentiment became more risk averse. The latter half of 2011 was characterized by continued volatility as the market’s confidence in policymakers waned. Despite a challenging environment, U.S. econometrics have improved in recent months, whereas the climate in Europe continued to be challenged and Asia’s growth has slowed, although not dramatically. In the end, 2011 was another turbulent year plagued by an uncertain macroeconomic picture due to deteriorating sovereign credit quality and a slowing global economy.

For equities, the headwinds from Europe, coupled with softer-than-anticipated economic data, concerns surrounding the sustainability of China’s growth and decreasing commodity prices all weighed heavily on equity markets throughout the year. The U.S. was the best-performing major market in the world in 2011. Corporate earnings growth continued, and the U.S. remained a step removed from the sovereign credit issues that tended to dominate trading in other parts of the world. Also, domestic economic data showed improving trends throughout the late summer and autumn, with Gross Domestic Product (“GDP”) growth posting consecutive improvements in the second and third quarters. U.S. employment data have reflected slow but steady progress in recent months, while many other nations have seen some slowing in economic fundamentals. The continued disconnect between the negative top-down macroeconomic sentiment and strong company fundamentals proved to be a difficult environment for fundamental stock pickers.

In terms of fixed income, Eurozone policy issues dominated nearly all risk markets towards the end of the year and as a result, performance during 2011 was mixed for various fixed income asset classes, including emerging market debt assets. While hard currency bonds (both sovereign and corporate) ended the year on a positive note, local currency debt had negative absolute returns for the year. U.S. investment grade (“IG”) credit finished the year strong, outperforming duration-matched Treasuries over the course of the last quarter; however, 2011 as a whole was quite challenging. Despite the U.S. credit rating downgrade, Treasuries became a preferred investment for many investors given the situation in Europe. While U.S. IG and Treasuries posted substantially positive total returns throughout the year on significantly lower rates, corporate spreads widened by 0.84% on a number of worries. European IG credit performed similarly to U.S. IG, with credit outperforming governments during the end of the year, but underperforming substantially for the full year. European credit spreads widened by 1.22% over the course of 2011 due to all of the aforementioned issues, with banks and peripheral country credits bearing the brunt of the weakness. The United Kingdom (“UK”) IG credit market underperformed Gilts materially on both a total return and excess return basis during 2011. From a quality standpoint, triple B-rated bonds performed better on a total return basis over the course of the year due to their longer duration, while higher quality fared better on an excess return basis. The U.S. high yield market finished the year with a strong performance, but underperformed Treasuries for the full year. Volatility continued in the high yield space given the uncertainties surrounding global growth and the European sovereign debt situation.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

Despite the uncertainty surrounding the continued trajectory of the global economic recovery during the past 12 months, the performance of the equity Portfolio, although marginally negative, easily bested its benchmark with the majority of the outperformance due to strong stock selection. The Portfolio experienced a diversified value-add as the Information Technology, Financials, Materials, Telecommunication Services and Utilities sectors all outperformed on a relative basis. Our underweight in both the Financials and Materials sector also boosted performance. Stock selection in Consumer Discretionary sector was a primary detractor to contribution to return, although our underweights in Healthcare, Energy and Consumer Staples did not help performance for the year.

China Overseas Land & Investment (China), Natura Cosmeticos (Brazil) and Siemens (Germany) were the largest detractors from performance in 2011. Shares of China Overseas Land & Investment declined amidst speculation that increasing property prices would spur the Chinese government to reduce investment in the property market. Shares of Brazilian cosmetics company, Natura Cosmeticos, fell during the second quarter after the company announced earnings that fell short of estimates. Siemens’ automation related businesses continued to perform well while still leveraging volume growth. The company’s recent pullback is understandable given the angst in global markets over the past year.

The Information Technology sector was by far our strongest performer on both an absolute and relative basis. Strong stock selection in the sector came from Apple Inc., ARM Holdings plc(UK) and SINA Corp. (China) Apple’s superior product design, software functionality, and synergy between products and services have allowed it to continue to gain share in the worldwide personal computer market and cell phone market, while maintaining majority market share in digital media players, tablets and downloadable applications and music. Shares of ARM Holdings were up after the company reported very strong results, driven by record sales of mobile communication devices and solid growth in new licensees, and the announcement that Microsoft would port its new mobile operating system to run on ARM chip technology.

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio

Managed by Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P.

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

Chinese Internet company SINA was also up as the provider of the Twitter-like Weibo service continued to grow subscribers.

Estee Lauder and FMC Technologies were also strong individual performers. FMC (an oil service company), is well positioned, in our view, to benefit from a projected increase in large subsea projects to be awarded in the coming months. The stock has been helped by the announcement of several large offshore discoveries. Estee Lauder has been a tremendous outperformer this year due to strong fundamentals which yielded results that have been better than expected in most regions and business units. As it has been a star performer and approaching our price target, we have been continuing to use Estee Lauder as a source of funds for other opportunities, shifting some of these funds into a well positioned staples company in Brazil, Natura Cosmeticos, which has lagged recently.

Over the past year, the positioning of the Portfolio has changed somewhat as a result of our individual stock decisions. We decreased our weights in the Information Technology and Consumer Discretionary sectors. Within Information Technology, we sold select companies from the Portfolio that had very strong runs. Our exposure to the Consumer Discretionary sector was also decreased, as we sold out of names that had become fully valued or where there was a significant structural change to our investment thesis, as was the case was Netflix. The majority of the proceeds were redeployed into the Consumer Staples sector. Geographically, the Portfolio has seen somewhat less significant shifts. We increased our exposure to the U.S., as growth prospects appear the most likely in that region, while we decreased our exposure to Europe and Emerging Markets due to overhanging concerns in those markets. Those concerns may continue to impact individual companies, regardless of their fundamentals. At the end of the 12-month period, Information Technology remained our most overweight position, and the Portfolio’s Financials exposure remained our most underweight position. North America remains our largest regional exposure and we have reduced our European exposure over the course of the year. All sectors and weights are the result of the individual investment decisions made on a stock by stock basis.

Security selection and sector allocation in the fixed income sleeve of the Portfolio drove underperformance for the year, as overweight positions in the corporate and high yield sectors suffered in the turbulent market environment. While the U.S. investment grade corporate market finished the year with positive returns, the IG market experienced setbacks during the middle of the year and selections within this space detracted from overall Portfolio performance for 2011. Selections within U.S. Automotive Manufacturers (i.e. General Motors preferred 4.75% and Ford Motor Company 4.25%), Banking (such as Merrill Lynch), Chemicals and Diversified Telecom all negatively impacted the Portfolio’s performance.

Currency and hedging allocation was another contributor to underperformance. While our underweight to the Euro aided returns for the year, our underweight to the Japanese Yen hurt performance as the Yen was one of the strongest-performing currencies during the period. Our corresponding overweights to select poor performing emerging market currencies such as the Brazilian Real, Indian Rupee, Mexican Peso, South Korean Won and Turkish Lira detracted from excess return as well.

Country allocation proved performance additive during the period mainly due to our substantial overweight in U.S. local markets and underweight in Japanese and European local markets. Our underweight to U.K. and Australian local markets dragged on returns. Another positive source of returns came from yield curve and duration positioning. Our longer-than-benchmark positioning in the U.S. Dollar pay arena, specifically U.S. corporate bonds, positively contributed to performance as longer maturity yields fell during the year.

Due to increased volatility worldwide, we have sought to de-risk without de-yielding over the past few months, reducing certain off-benchmark currency positions and adding back some high-quality duration while retaining our position in corporate debt. We prefer to capture a positive yield in corporate bonds as quality yield is scarce worldwide, in part due to Europe having elected a fiscal contraction solution to its policy dilemmas. As we assessed the global macro trends, we remained focused on security selection and evaluating individual investments as opportunities arose. Our longer-term view of spread product remains favorable due to our base case expectation for the global economy to gradually improve, aided by further easing by the Federal Reserve and European Central Bank if necessary, the generally solid condition of corporate balance sheets, and favorable technical indicators. Therefore, we believe that issue selection is critical and a number of challenges (economic uncertainty, sovereign contagion) need to be closely monitored.

Dan Fuss, CFA, CIC

Warren Koontz, CFA, CIC,

David Rolley, CFA

Portfolio Managers

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P.

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio

Managed by Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P.

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Apple, Inc.		3.3
Novo Nordisk A.S. - Class B		2.5
Ford Motor Co.		2.5
HCA, Inc.		2.0
Google, Inc. - Class A		1.9
Baidu, Inc. (ADR)		1.8
Standard Chartered plc		1.8
PepsiCo, Inc.		1.7
FMC Technologies, Inc.		1.7
Diageo plc		1.6

Top Equity Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Non-Cyclical		15.7
Communications		10.8
Financials		9.0
Industrials		8.5
Cyclical		6.8

Top Fixed Income Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities		14.6
Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities		11.4
Convertible Bonds		2.8
U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies		2.4
Convertible Preferred Stocks		1.0

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio

Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio managed by

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. vs. MSCI World Index¹ and Citigroup World Government Bond Index (WGBI)²

	Average Annual Return3 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		5 Year		Since Inception4
Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio—Class A		-1.25%		5.88%		6.01%
Class B		-1.48%		5.62%		5.73%
MSCI World Index1		-5.54%		-2.37%		-0.54%
Citigroup World Government Bond Index (WGBI)2		6.35%		7.13%		7.01%

The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other class of shares because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹The MSCI World Index is a capitalization weighted index that measures performance of stocks from developed countries around the world. The index returns shown above were calculated with net dividends: they reflect the reinvestment of dividends after the deduction of the maximum possible withholding taxes.

²The Citigroup World Government Bond Index (WGBI) is market capitalization weighted and tracks total returns of government bonds in 21 countries globally.

³ “Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

⁴ Inception of Class A and Class B shares is 5/1/2006. Index returns are based on an inception date of 5/1/2006.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The indexes do not include fees or expenses and are not available for direct investment.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A
Actual		0.80%	$	1,000.00	$	905.60	$	3.84
Hypothetical*		0.80%		1,000.00		1,021.17		4.08
Class B
Actual		1.05%	$	1,000.00	$	904.20	$	5.04
Hypothetical*		1.05%		1,000.00		1,019.91		5.35

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—65.8% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—2.4%
Embraer S.A. (ADR) (a)		177,295	$	4,471,380
Precision Castparts Corp.		28,811		4,747,765
				9,219,145
Beverages—6.3%
Anheuser-Busch InBev N.V.		102,483		6,272,920
Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc.		192,852		4,971,724
Diageo plc		291,062		6,353,492
PepsiCo, Inc.		101,928		6,762,923
				24,361,059
Biotechnology—0.7%
Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.* (a)		86,480		2,872,001
Chemicals—2.3%
LG Chem, Ltd.		10,649		2,941,371
Praxair, Inc.		57,098		6,103,776
				9,045,147
Commercial Banks—4.5%
Banco Santander Chile (ADR)		66,050		4,999,985
PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.		101,238		5,838,396
Standard Chartered plc		302,446		6,587,342
				17,425,723
Communications Equipment—1.1%
QUALCOMM, Inc.		75,908		4,152,168
Computers & Peripherals—3.3%
Apple, Inc.*		31,156		12,618,180
Consumer Finance—1.4%
American Express Co.		118,492		5,589,268
Diversified Telecommunication Services—2.2%
AT&T, Inc.		128,377		3,882,120
CenturyLink, Inc. (a)		126,964		4,723,061
				8,605,181
Electrical Equipment—1.0%
Mitsubishi Electric Corp.		417,000		3,986,024
Energy Equipment & Services—4.8%
FMC Technologies, Inc.* (a)		123,848		6,468,581
National Oilwell Varco, Inc. (a)		89,725		6,100,403
Schlumberger, Ltd.		86,476		5,907,175
				18,476,159
Food & Staples Retailing—1.0%
CVS Caremark Corp.		94,883	$	3,869,329
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—1.1%
Arcos Dorados Holdings, Inc.—Class A		201,876		4,144,514
Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders—1.5%
Calpine Corp.*		345,875		5,648,139
Industrial Conglomerates—1.0%
Siemens AG		38,407		3,681,497
Insurance—1.4%
ACE, Ltd.		75,109		5,266,643
Internet & Catalog Retail—1.5%
Priceline.com, Inc.*		12,546		5,867,890
Internet Software & Services—4.3%
Baidu, Inc. (ADR)*		61,501		7,163,022
Google, Inc.—Class A*		11,338		7,323,214
Mail.ru Group, Ltd. (GDR)(144A)*		87,064		2,263,664
				16,749,900
Machinery—4.0%
Atlas Copco A.B.—A Shares		220,172		4,717,644
Caterpillar, Inc.		64,221		5,818,422
FANUC Corp.		33,600		5,134,420
				15,670,486
Metals & Mining—1.0%
Antofagasta plc		199,997		3,745,828
Multiline Retail—0.9%
S.A.C.I. Falabella		428,430		3,331,454
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—1.4%
Royal Dutch Shell plc (ADR)		76,575		5,596,867
Personal Products—1.2%
Natura Cosmeticos S.A.		233,493		4,539,046
Pharmaceuticals—5.3%
Genomma Lab Internacional S.A.B. de C.V.—Class B* (a)		2,290,968		4,418,037
Novo Nordisk A.S.—Class B		85,662		9,876,969
Sanofi		78,022		5,721,737
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.*		9,742		454,854
				20,471,597

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares/Par Amount($)†		Value
Real Estate Management & Development—1.5%
Hang Lung Properties, Ltd.		652,000	$	1,853,636
Jones Lang LaSalle, Inc. (a)		61,482		3,766,388
				5,620,024
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—0.6%
Texas Instruments, Inc.		83,918		2,442,853
Software—2.8%
Microsoft Corp.		169,669		4,404,607
Oracle Corp.		152,768		3,918,499
VMware, Inc.—Class A*		32,647		2,715,904
				11,039,010
Specialty Retail—1.1%
CIA Hering		248,400		4,322,779
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—0.6%
Burberry Group plc		130,757		2,393,733
Tobacco—1.3%
British American Tobacco plc		109,838		5,209,876
Trading Companies & Distributors—0.7%
Mills Estruturas e Servicos de Engenharia S.A.		292,600		2,776,582
Wireless Telecommunication Services—1.6%
Vodafone Group plc		2,182,575		6,061,761
Total Common Stocks (Cost $238,427,509)				254,799,863
Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—14.5%
Aerospace & Defense—0.1%
Textron, Inc. 3.875%, 03/11/13 (EUR)		250,000		324,812
Airlines—0.8%
Delta Air Lines, Inc. 8.954%, 08/10/14		1,487,283		1,483,566
8.021%, 08/10/22		1,520,134		1,491,555
				2,975,121
Auto Components—0.3%
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (The) 7.000%, 03/15/28		1,228,000		1,197,300
Automobiles—2.0%
Ford Motor Co. 6.625%, 10/01/28		5,750,000	$	6,083,270
7.450%, 07/16/31 (a)		1,465,000		1,765,325
				7,848,595
Building Products—0.4%
Masco Corp. 7.125%, 03/15/20		125,000		126,347
7.750%, 08/01/29		75,000		72,971
USG Corp. 6.300%, 11/15/16		195,000		153,075
9.750%, 01/15/18		1,495,000		1,270,750
				1,623,143
Capital Markets—1.0%
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The) 6.750%, 10/01/37		40,000		37,329
6.875%, 01/18/38 (GBP)		100,000		124,129
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. 6.050%, 05/16/16		200,000		188,688
6.220%, 09/15/26		300,000		248,013
6.110%, 01/29/37		1,200,000		927,692
Morgan Stanley 5.375%, 11/14/13 (GBP)		240,000		369,531
7.625%, 03/03/16 (AUD)		500,000		497,813
5.750%, 01/25/21		1,600,000		1,495,058
				3,888,253
Chemicals—0.0%
Hercules, Inc. 6.500%, 06/30/29		10,000		7,700
Incitec Pivot Finance LLC 6.000%, 12/10/19 (144A)		80,000		87,549
				95,249
Commercial Banks—0.4%
CIT Group, Inc. 7.000%, 05/01/17		909,852		910,989
Export Credit Bank of Turkey 5.375%, 11/04/16 (144A)(a)		200,000		198,000
Wells Fargo & Co. 4.625%, 11/02/35 (GBP)		100,000		148,001
Series EMTN 4.875%, 11/29/35 (GBP)		100,000		129,969
				1,386,959

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Consumer Finance—0.6%
Ally Financial, Inc. 8.000%, 12/31/18		448,000	$	442,400
8.000%, 11/01/31		736,000		713,920
Springleaf Finance Corp. Series I 5.400%, 12/01/15		390,000		285,675
Series J 5.900%, 09/15/12		100,000		96,125
6.900%, 12/15/17		100,000		72,500
Series MTN 5.850%, 06/01/13 (a)		245,000		216,825
5.750%, 09/15/16		600,000		424,500
Series MTNI 4.875%, 07/15/12		200,000		192,500
				2,444,445
Diversified Financial Services—0.6%
Bank of America Corp. 5.490%, 03/15/19		100,000		86,314
4.750%, 05/06/19 (EUR)(b)		285,000		265,066
Series MTN 5.000%, 05/13/21		90,000		82,124
Eksportfinans ASA 2.000%, 09/15/15		90,000		74,619
General Electric Capital Corp. Series GMTN 7.625%, 12/10/14 (NZD)		850,000		724,119
International Lease Finance Corp. 6.250%, 05/15/19		1,105,000		1,022,252
				2,254,494
Diversified Telecommunication Services—1.5%
CenturyLink, Inc. 6.450%, 06/15/21		165,000		165,594
7.600%, 09/15/39		475,000		467,428
Series G 6.875%, 01/15/28		45,000		42,047
Level 3 Financing, Inc. 8.750%, 02/15/17		670,000		685,075
9.375%, 04/01/19 (a)		95,000		99,631
Qwest Capital Funding, Inc. 7.625%, 08/03/21		1,070,000		1,096,486
7.750%, 02/15/31		1,445,000		1,442,652
Sprint Capital Corp. 6.900%, 05/01/19		735,000		608,212
6.875%, 11/15/28		1,250,000		898,437
8.750%, 03/15/32		350,000		284,813
				5,790,375
Electric Utilities—0.1%
Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras S.A. 5.750%, 10/27/21 (144A)(a)		400,000	$	417,600
Energy—0.1%
Pacific Rubiales Energy Corp. 7.250%, 12/12/21 (144A)		480,000		484,800
Food & Staples Retailing—1.1%
New Albertson’s, Inc. 7.450%, 08/01/29		5,470,000		4,293,950
Health Care Providers & Services—2.3%
HCA, Inc. 7.500%, 11/06/33		5,060,000		4,402,200
7.500%, 12/15/23		315,000		283,500
7.690%, 06/15/25		755,000		671,950
7.580%, 09/15/25		1,375,000		1,223,750
7.050%, 12/01/27		80,000		67,500
7.750%, 07/15/36		1,420,000		1,244,275
Kindred Healthcare, Inc. 8.250%, 06/01/19		195,000		164,775
Tenet Healthcare Corp. 6.875%, 11/15/31		910,000		750,750
				8,808,700
Household Durables—0.1%
K. Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. 7.500%, 05/15/16		15,000		5,850
5.000%, 11/01/21 (144A)		700,000		392,000
				397,850
Industrial Conglomerates—1.1%
Borden, Inc. 8.375%, 04/15/16		3,030,000		2,196,750
9.200%, 03/15/21		1,910,000		1,563,813
7.875%, 02/15/23		899,000		678,745
				4,439,308
Insurance—0.2%
Forethought Financial Group, Inc. 8.625%, 04/15/21 (144A)		820,000		830,461
Internet Software & Services—0.1%
Tencent Holdings Ltd. 4.625%, 12/12/16 (144A)		400,000		391,278

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Leisure Equipment & Products—0.1%
Eastman Kodak Co. 7.250%, 11/15/13		30,000	$	10,050
9.750%, 03/01/18 (144A)		160,000		122,400
10.625%, 03/15/19 (144A)		240,000		186,000
				318,450
Machinery—0.2%
Cummins, Inc. 6.750%, 02/15/27		509,000		621,648
Metals & Mining—0.4%
Alcoa, Inc. 5.900%, 02/01/27 (a)		975,000		966,409
Gerdau Holdings, Inc. 7.000%, 01/20/20 (144A) (a)		400,000		424,000
				1,390,409
Multiline Retail—0.1%
JC Penney Corp., Inc. 7.625%, 03/01/97		250,000		225,000
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—0.5%
Gazprom OAO Via Gaz Capital S.A. 4.950%, 05/23/16 (144A)		200,000		200,500
NGC Corp. Capital Trust Series B 8.316%, 06/01/27 (d)		540,000		129,600
Petrobras International Finance Co. 6.250%, 12/14/26 (GBP)		200,000		319,730
TXU Corp. 5.550%, 11/15/14		630,000		450,450
6.500%, 11/15/24		1,620,000		729,000
6.550%, 11/15/34 (a)		120,000		51,600
				1,880,880
Real Estate Investment Trusts—0.4%
iStar Financial, Inc. 5.500%, 06/15/12 (a)		115,000		112,987
5.950%, 10/15/13		955,000		828,462
5.700%, 03/01/14		125,000		105,313
6.050%, 04/15/15 (a)		40,000		33,100
5.875%, 03/15/16		220,000		180,400
Weyerhaeuser Co. 6.950%, 10/01/27		60,000		59,488
7.375%, 03/15/32		320,000		336,779
				1,656,529
Specialty Retail—0.0%
Toys “R” Us, Inc. 7.375%, 10/15/18		150,000	$	135,375
Wireless Telecommunication Services—0.0%
Sprint Nextel Corp. 6.000%, 12/01/16		109,000		91,015
Total Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities (Cost $55,705,980)				56,211,999
Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—11.3%
Aerospace & Defense—0.1%
Finmeccanica S.p.A. 4.875%, 03/24/25 (EUR)		290,000		245,606
Automobiles—0.1%
Kia Motors Corp. 3.625%, 06/14/16 (144A)		300,000		297,709
Building Products—0.2%
Voto-Votorantim, Ltd. 6.750%, 04/05/21 (144A)		300,000		320,250
Votorantim Cimentos S.A. 7.250%, 04/05/41 (144A)		600,000		586,500
				906,750
Chemicals—0.2%
Braskem Finance, Ltd. 5.750%, 04/15/21 (144A)		200,000		200,500
LPG International, Inc. 7.250%, 12/20/15		175,000		193,375
Mexichem S.A.B. de C.V. 8.750%, 11/06/19 (144A)		400,000		468,000
				861,875
Commercial Banks—1.2%
Akbank T.A.S. 5.125%, 07/22/15 (144A)		100,000		98,000
Banco Santander Chile 6.500%, 09/22/20 (144A) (CLP)		250,000,000		472,765
Banco Votorantim S.A. 6.250%, 05/16/16 (144A) (BRL)		450,000		244,922
Barclays Bank plc Series EMTN 3.680%, 08/20/15 (KRW)		220,000,000		192,263

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Commercial Banks—(Continued)
BBVA Bancomer S.A. 6.500%, 03/10/21 (144A)		300,000	$	290,625
Canara Bank, Ltd. 6.365%, 11/28/21 (b)		200,000		190,614
European Investment Bank 2.375%, 07/10/20 (CHF)		430,000		491,861
Export-Import Bank of Korea 4.000%, 11/26/15 (144A) (PHP)		8,000,000		177,913
Hana Bank 4.000%, 11/03/16 (144A)		200,000		199,794
ICICI Bank, Ltd. 6.375%, 04/30/22 (144A) (b)		300,000		265,500
International Bank for Reconstruction & Development (The) Series GDIF 2.300%, 02/26/13 (KRW)		1,190,000,000		1,029,887
Itau Unibanco Holding S.A. 6.200%, 12/21/21 (144A) (a)		300,000		310,408
Standard Chartered Bank 5.875%, 09/26/17 (EUR)		250,000		318,995
Woori Bank 5.875%, 04/13/21 (144A)		200,000		201,007
				4,484,554
Construction Materials—0.1%
Lafarge S.A. 4.750%, 03/23/20 (EUR)		225,000		233,487
Consumer Finance—0.0%
Sydney Airport Finance Co. Pty, Ltd. 5.125%, 02/22/21 (144A)		140,000		142,309
Distributors—0.2%
Marfrig Holding Europe BV 8.375%, 05/09/18 (144A)		300,000		222,000
Marfrig Overseas, Ltd. 9.625%, 11/16/16 (144A)		530,000		469,050
9.500%, 05/04/20 (144A)		300,000		223,500
				914,550
Diversified Financial Services—0.3%
Fibria Overseas Finance, Ltd. 7.500%, 05/04/20 (144A) (a)		239,000		234,818
6.750%, 03/03/21 (144A)		300,000		276,750
Diversified Financial Services—(Continued)
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. 6.625%, 04/07/21 (144A)		500,000	$	461,751
				973,319
Diversified Telecommunication Services—0.4%
Axtel S.A.B. de C.V. 9.000%, 09/22/19 (144A)		720,000		554,400
Bell Canada 6.100%, 03/16/35 (144A) (CAD)		300,000		333,692
Brasil Telecom S.A. 9.750%, 09/15/16 (144A) (BRL)		300,000		157,620
Telecom Italia Capital S.A. 6.000%, 09/30/34		350,000		260,031
Telefonica Emisiones SAU 4.375%, 02/02/16 (EUR)		140,000		179,482
				1,485,225
Electric Utilities—1.1%
Abu Dhabi National Energy Co. 6.500%, 10/27/36 (144A)		900,000		888,750
Dubai Electricity & Water Authority 8.500%, 04/22/15 (144A)		300,000		325,500
6.375%, 10/21/16 (144A)		200,000		205,500
E-CL S.A. 5.625%, 01/15/21 (144A)		250,000		265,409
Emgesa S.A. ESP 8.750%, 01/25/21 (144A) (COP)		450,000,000		249,131
Empresas Publicas de Medellin ESP 7.625%, 07/29/19 (144A)		400,000		466,000
8.375%, 02/01/21 (144A) (COP)		1,390,000,000		752,400
Majapahit Holding B.V. 8.000%, 08/07/19 (144A)		400,000		472,000
7.750%, 01/20/20 (144A)		200,000		233,250
MDC-GMTN B.V. 7.625%, 05/06/19 (144A)		250,000		299,597
				4,157,537
Energy Equipment & Services—0.1%
MBPS Finance Co. 11.250%, 11/15/15 (144A)		200,000		136,000
Odebrecht Drilling Norbe VIII/IX, Ltd. 6.350%, 06/30/21 (144A)		196,000		202,860
				338,860

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Gas Utilities—0.1%
Transportadora de Gas del Sur S.A. 7.875%, 05/14/17 (144A)		355,000	$	323,050
Household Durables—0.2%
Desarrolladora Homex S.A. de C.V. 7.500%, 09/28/15		385,000		379,225
Urbi Desarrollos Urbanos S.A.B de C.V. 9.500%, 01/21/20 (144A)		475,000		484,500
				863,725
Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders—0.1%
Listrindo Capital B.V. 9.250%, 01/29/15 (144A)		400,000		435,487
Media—0.2%
Corus Entertainment, Inc. 7.250%, 02/10/17 (144A) (CAD)		190,000		194,325
Myriad International Holding B.V. 6.375%, 07/28/17 (144A) (a)		100,000		107,000
Shaw Communications, Inc. 5.650%, 10/01/19 (CAD)		250,000		268,083
WPP plc 6.000%, 04/04/17 (GBP)		160,000		275,262
				844,670
Metals & Mining—0.5%
ArcelorMittal 6.750%, 03/01/41		300,000		270,573
CSN Resources S.A. 6.500%, 07/21/20 (144A)		100,000		105,000
Hyundai Steel Co. 4.625%, 04/21/16 (144A)		400,000		399,091
Vale Overseas, Ltd. 6.875%, 11/21/36		694,000		793,624
Vedanta Resources plc 6.750%, 06/07/16 (144A) (a)		275,000		236,500
8.250%, 06/07/21 (144A)		200,000		157,000
				1,961,788
Multi - Utilities—0.1%
Veolia Environnement S.A. 5.125%, 05/24/22 (EUR)		200,000		270,156
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—0.4%
Adaro Indonesia PT 7.625%, 10/22/19 (144A) (a)		400,000		438,520
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—(Continued)
Ecopetrol S.A. 7.625%, 07/23/19 (a)		400,000	$	486,000
OGX Petroleo e Gas Participacoes S.A. 8.500%, 06/01/18 (144A)		200,000		198,000
Pan American Energy LLC 7.875%, 05/07/21 (144A)		200,000		203,000
Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. 5.375%, 04/12/27		600,000		301,500
				1,627,020
Paper & Forest Products—0.1%
Celulosa Arauco y Constitucion S.A. 7.250%, 07/29/19		200,000		237,733
5.000%, 01/21/21		170,000		177,452
				415,185
Road & Rail—0.1%
DP World, Ltd. 6.850%, 07/02/37 (144A)		500,000		455,000
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—0.0%
STATS ChipPAC, Ltd. 7.500%, 08/12/15 (144A)		150,000		157,500
Sovereign—4.9%
Argentina Government International Bond Series NY 8.280%, 12/31/33		619,121		455,054
Brazil Notas do Tesouro Nacional Series B 6.000%, 05/15/15 (BRL)		71,500		835,764
Series F 10.000%, 01/01/21 (BRL)		163,500		816,646
Bundesrepublik Deutschland 3.000%, 07/04/20 (EUR)		185,000		265,986
Canadian Government Bond 3.500%, 06/01/13 (CAD)		525,000		534,582
3.000%, 12/01/15 (CAD)		1,265,000		1,330,449
Hungary Government International Bond 6.375%, 03/29/21 (a)		190,000		171,000
Indonesia Treasury Bond 11.500%, 09/15/19 (IDR)		2,901,000,000		427,605
Italy Buoni Poliennali Del Tesoro 4.750%, 09/15/16 (EUR)		1,210,000		1,487,647

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Sovereign—(Continued)
Korea Treasury Bond Series 1409 5.000%, 09/10/14 (KRW)		1,000,000,000	$	904,404
Malaysia Government Bond 4.262%, 09/15/16 (MYR)		800,000		262,645
Series 0211 3.434%, 08/15/14 (MYR)		1,600,000		509,730
Series 0509 3.210%, 05/31/13 (MYR)		1,200,000		380,049
Mexican Bonos Series M 8.000%, 12/17/15 (MXN)		14,050,000		1,099,328
8.500%, 11/18/38 (MXN)		6,500,000		502,751
New Zealand Government Bond Series 521 6.000%, 05/15/21 (NZD)		1,000,000		913,891
Norwegian Government Bond 4.250%, 05/19/17 (NOK)		4,700,000		877,935
4.500%, 05/22/19 (NOK)		4,280,000		823,705
Philippine Government International Bond 6.250%, 01/14/36 (PHP)		30,000,000		694,333
Singapore Government Bond 1.625%, 04/01/13 (SGD)		2,015,000		1,580,767
2.250%, 07/01/13 (SGD)		570,000		452,750
Spain Government Bond 4.100%, 07/30/18 (EUR)		205,000		257,779
5.500%, 04/30/21 (EUR)		375,000		497,035
Sweden Government Bond Series 1047 5.000%, 12/01/20 (SEK)		2,650,000		496,314
Turkey Government Bond Series CPI 4.000%, 04/29/15 (TRY)		600,000		361,685
United Kingdom Gilt 5.250%, 06/07/12 (GBP)		300,000		475,918
4.000%, 09/07/16 (GBP)		155,000		275,355
4.250%, 03/07/36 (GBP)		550,000		1,048,499
Uruguay Government International Bond 4.375%, 12/15/28 (UYU)		4,890,329		244,829
3.700%, 06/26/37 (UYU)		2,700,000		161,877
				19,146,312
Specialty Retail—0.2%
Edcon Proprietary, Ltd. 4.676%, 06/15/14 (EUR) (b)		610,000	$	583,555
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance—0.1%
Odebrecht Finance, Ltd. 6.000%, 04/05/23 (144A)		500,000		503,750
Tobacco—0.0%
British American Tobacco Holdings (The Netherlands) B.V. Series EMTN 4.000%, 07/07/20 (EUR)		100,000		133,812
Trading Companies & Distributors—0.1%
Noble Group, Ltd. 6.750%, 01/29/20 (144A)		300,000		261,000
Transportation Infrastructure—0.1%
Transnet, Ltd. 4.500%, 02/10/16 (144A)		400,000		405,457
Wireless Telecommunication Services—0.1%
British Telecommunications plc 5.750%, 12/07/28 (GBP)		150,000		249,144
Indosat Palapa Co. B.V. 7.375%, 07/29/20 (144A) (a)		200,000		222,500
				471,644
Total Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities (Cost $43,724,024)				43,900,892
Convertible Bonds—2.8%
Automobiles—0.5%
Ford Motor Co. 4.250%, 11/15/16		1,305,000		1,877,569
Biotechnology—0.1%
Human Genome Sciences, Inc. 3.000%, 11/15/18		465,000		417,338
Diversified Telecommunication Services—0.3%
Level 3 Communications, Inc. 7.000%, 03/15/15 (144A)		1,015,000		1,105,081
Health Care Providers & Services—0.1%
Omnicare, Inc. 3.750%, 12/15/25		365,000		509,175

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Convertible Bonds—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Insurance—0.4%
Old Republic International Corp. 3.750%, 03/15/18 (a)		1,770,000	$	1,564,237
Machinery—0.0%
Trinity Industries, Inc. 3.875%, 06/01/36 (a)		45,000		44,213
Real Estate Investment Trusts—0.3%
iStar Financial, Inc. 0.872%, 10/01/12 (b)		1,150,000		1,035,000
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—1.1%
Intel Corp. 3.250%, 08/01/39		2,670,000		3,357,525
Kulicke & Soffa Industries, Inc. 0.875%, 06/01/12		910,000		911,137
				4,268,662
Total Convertible Bonds (Cost $9,629,471)				10,821,275
U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—1.1%
U.S. Treasury Notes 0.875%, 01/31/12		4,000,000		4,003,124
Total U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies (Cost $4,022,357)				4,003,124
Convertible Preferred Stocks—0.8%
Automobiles—0.5%
General Motors Co. Series B 4.750%, 12/01/13		56,460		1,954,927
Diversified Telecommunication Services—0.3%
Lucent Technologies Capital Trust I 7.750%, 03/15/17		2,063		1,266,682
Total Convertible Preferred Stocks (Cost $4,204,729)				3,221,609
Municipals—0.2%
Tobacco Settlement Financing Corp. 6.706%, 06/01/46		1,365,000		858,831
Total Municipals (Cost $1,364,697)				858,831

Preferred Stocks—0.2%
Security Description	Shares/Par Amount		Value
Consumer Finance—0.2%
Ally Financial, Inc., Series G (144A)		906	$	649,517
Total Preferred Stocks (Cost $211,643)				649,517
Short-Term Investments—7.2%
Mutual Funds—4.8%
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (c)		18,673,623		18,673,623
Repurchase Agreement—2.4%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $9,254,010 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $1,290,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. at 1.375% due 02/25/14 with a value of $1,320,423; by $7,475,000 U.S. Treasury Note at 1.750% due 01/31/14 with a value of $7,755,313; by $350,000 U.S. Treasury Note at 1.875% due 02/28/14 with a value of $363,563.	$	9,254,000		9,254,000
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $27,927,623)				27,927,623
Total Investments—103.9% (Cost $385,218,033#)				402,394,733
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(3.9)%				(15,020,112	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	387,374,621

† Par amount in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $387,064,323. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $37,080,619 and $(21,750,209), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $15,330,410 for federal income tax purposes.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities loaned was $18,233,938

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $18,673,623. The cash collateral is invested in a money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian.

(b) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2011. Maturity date shown for callable securities reflects the earliest possible call date.

(c) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities lending transactions.

(d) Security is in default and/or issuer is in bankruptcy.

(144A)— Securities exempt from registration under Rule 144A of the Securities Act of 1933. These securities may be resold in transactions exempt from registration, normally to qualified institutional buyers. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of 144A securities was $24,745,710, which is 6.3% of net assets.

(ADR)— An American Depositary Receipt is a certificate issued by a custodian bank representing the right to receive securities of the foreign issuer described. Trading on exchanges not located in the United States or Canada significantly influences the value of ADRs.

(GDR)— A Global Depositary Receipt is a negotiable certificate issued by one country’s bank against a certain number of shares of a company’s stock held in its custody but traded on the stock exchange of another country.

(AUD)— Australian Dollar

(BRL)— Brazilian Real

(CAD)— Canadian Dollar

(CHF)— Swiss Franc

(CLP)— Chilean Peso

(COP)— Colombian Peso

(EMTN)— Euro Medium Term Note

(EUR)— Euro

(GBP)— British Pound

(GMTN)— Global Medium Term Note

(IDR)— Indonesian Rupiah

(KRW)— South Korean Won

(MTN)— Medium Term Note

(MXN)— Mexican Peso

(MYR)— Malaysian Ringgit

(NOK)— Norwegian Krone

(NZD)— New Zealand Dollar

(PHP)— Philippine Peso

(SEK)— Swedish Krona

(SGD)— Singapore Dollar

(TRY)— New Turkish Lira

(UYU)— Uruguayan Peso

Countries  Diversification as of December 31, 2011 (Unaudited)
	% of Net Assets
United States		58.2
United Kingdom		10.2
Brazil		5.2
Cayman Islands		2.7
Denmark		2.5
Chile		2.4
Japan		2.4
Mexico		2.1
Netherlands		2.0
British Virgin Islands		1.7

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Common Stocks
Aerospace & Defense	$	9,219,145	$	—	$	—	$	9,219,145
Beverages		11,734,647		12,626,412		—		24,361,059
Biotechnology		2,872,001		—		—		2,872,001
Chemicals		6,103,776		2,941,371		—		9,045,147
Commercial Banks		10,838,381		6,587,342		—		17,425,723
Communications Equipment		4,152,168		—		—		4,152,168
Computers & Peripherals		12,618,180		—		—		12,618,180
Consumer Finance		5,589,268		—		—		5,589,268
Diversified Telecommunication Services		8,605,181		—		—		8,605,181
Electrical Equipment		—		3,986,024		—		3,986,024
Energy Equipment & Services		18,476,159		—		—		18,476,159
Food & Staples Retailing		3,869,329		—		—		3,869,329
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure		4,144,514		—		—		4,144,514
Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders		5,648,139		—		—		5,648,139
Industrial Conglomerates		—		3,681,497		—		3,681,497
Insurance		5,266,643		—		—		5,266,643
Internet & Catalog Retail		5,867,890		—		—		5,867,890
Internet Software & Services		16,749,900		—		—		16,749,900
Machinery		5,818,422		9,852,064		—		15,670,486
Metals & Mining		—		3,745,828		—		3,745,828
Multiline Retail		3,331,454		—		—		3,331,454
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels		5,596,867		—		—		5,596,867
Personal Products		4,539,046		—		—		4,539,046
Pharmaceuticals		4,872,891		15,598,706		—		20,471,597
Real Estate Management & Development		3,766,388		1,853,636		—		5,620,024
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment		2,442,853		—		—		2,442,853
Software		11,039,010		—		—		11,039,010
Specialty Retail		4,322,779		—		—		4,322,779
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods		—		2,393,733		—		2,393,733
Tobacco		—		5,209,876		—		5,209,876
Trading Companies & Distributors		2,776,582		—		—		2,776,582

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY—(Continued)

Description	Level 1		Level 2			Level 3		Total
Wireless Telecommunication Services	$	—	$	6,061,761		$	—	$	6,061,761
Total Common Stocks		180,261,613		74,538,250			—		254,799,863
Total Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities*		—		56,211,999			—		56,211,999
Total Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities*		—		43,900,892			—		43,900,892
Total Convertible Bonds*		—		10,821,275			—		10,821,275
Total U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies*		—		4,003,124			—		4,003,124
Total Convertible Preferred Stocks*		3,221,609		—			—		3,221,609
Total Municipals*		—		858,831			—		858,831
Total Preferred Stocks*		649,517		—			—		649,517
Short-Term Investments
Mutual Funds		18,673,623		—			—		18,673,623
Repurchase Agreement		—		9,254,000			—		9,254,000
Total Short-Term Investments		18,673,623		9,254,000			—		27,927,623
Total Investments	$	202,806,362	$	199,588,371		$	—	$	402,394,733
Forwards**
Forward Foreign Currency Contracts (Unrealized Appreciation)	$	—	$	12,726		$	—	$	12,726
Forward Foreign Currency Contracts (Unrealized Depreciation)		—		(15,709	)		—		(15,709	)
Total Forward Contracts	$	—	$	(2,983	)	$	—	$	(2,983	)

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

** Derivative instruments such as forwards are valued on the unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the instrument.

Following is a reconciliation of Level 3 assets for which significant unobservable inputs were used to determine fair value:

	Balance as of December 31, 2010		Transfers out of Level 3			Balance as of December 31, 2011		Change in Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation) for Investments Held at December 31, 2011
Common Stocks
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods	$	3,077,928	$	(3,077,928	)	$	—	$	—

Common stocks in the amount of $3,077,928 were transferred out of Level 3 due to the initiation of a vendor or broker providing prices.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)(b)	$	393,140,733
Repurchase Agreement		9,254,000
Cash		7,421
Cash denominated in foreign currencies (c)		1,481,493
Receivable for shares sold		80,677
Dividends receivable		363,096
Interest receivable		2,183,857
Unrealized appreciation on forward currency exchange contracts		12,726
Total assets		406,524,003
Liabilities
Payables for:
Shares redeemed		91,023
Unrealized depreciation on forward currency exchange contracts		15,709
Collateral for securities loaned		18,673,623
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		230,274
Distribution and service fees - Class B		46,365
Administration fees		1,865
Custodian and accounting fees		15,397
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		50,059
Total liabilities		19,149,382
Net Assets	$	387,374,621
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	466,175,211
Accumulated net realized loss		(104,795,969	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		17,104,584
Undistributed net investment income		8,890,795
Net Assets	$	387,374,621
Net Assets
Class A	$	168,920,187
Class B		218,454,434
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		14,794,822
Class B		19,279,357
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	11.42
Class B		11.33

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreement, was $375,964,033.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $18,233,938.

(c) Identified cost of cash denominated in foreign currencies was $1,526,994.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	4,480,131
Interest (b)		7,675,814
Total investment income		12,155,945
Expenses
Management fees		2,812,145
Administration fees		22,986
Custodian and accounting fees		190,429
Distribution and service fees - Class B		539,687
Audit and tax services		52,948
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Shareholder reporting		45,543
Insurance		1,655
Miscellaneous		10,288
Total expenses		3,744,391
Less broker commission recapture		(21,070	)
Net expenses		3,723,321
Net investment income		8,432,624
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments and Foreign Currency Transactions
Net realized gain on:
Investments		35,289,629
Foreign currency transactions		419,822
Net realized gain on investments and foreign currency transactions		35,709,451
Net change in unrealized depreciation from:
Investments		(50,547,020	)
Foreign currency transactions		(131,041	)
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		(50,678,061	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments and foreign currency transactions		(14,968,610	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(6,535,986	)

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $315,323.

(b) Includes net income on securities loaned of $169,496.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	8,432,624		$	9,115,085
Net realized gain on investments and foreign currency transactions		35,709,451			107,792,599
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		(50,678,061	)		(26,238,373	)
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations		(6,535,986	)		90,669,311
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(4,701,715	)		(20,009,609	)
Class B		(5,026,728	)		(3,749,934	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(9,728,443	)		(23,759,543	)
Net increase (decrease) in net assets from capital share transactions		34,841,716			(365,065,882	)
Net Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets		18,577,287			(298,156,114	)
Net assets at beginning of period		368,797,334			666,953,448
Net assets at end of period	$	387,374,621		$	368,797,334
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	8,890,795		$	8,605,910

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		478,537		$	5,759,664			2,065,670		$	20,789,391
Reinvestments		371,383			4,701,715			1,935,165			20,009,609
Redemptions		(1,897,233	)		(22,688,395	)		(44,666,755	)		(463,280,409	)
Net decrease		(1,047,313	)	$	(12,227,016	)		(40,665,920	)	$	(422,481,409	)
Class B
Sales		7,850,420		$	93,931,877			7,448,400		$	80,441,864
Reinvestments		399,581			5,026,728			364,425			3,749,934
Redemptions		(4,371,415	)		(51,889,873	)		(2,623,153	)		(26,776,271	)
Net increase		3,878,586		$	47,068,732			5,189,672		$	57,415,527
Increase (decrease) derived from capital shares transactions				$	34,841,716					$	(365,065,882	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	11.84		$	10.00		$	7.29		$	13.27		$	10.36
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.27			0.23			0.27			0.25			0.24
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.39	)		1.96			2.64			(5.00	)		2.67
Total from investment operations		(0.12	)		2.19			2.91			(4.75	)		2.91
Less distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.30	)		(0.35	)		(0.20	)		(0.54	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.69	)		0.00
Total distributions		(0.30	)		(0.35	)		(0.20	)		(1.23	)		0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	11.42		$	11.84		$	10.00		$	7.29		$	13.27
Total Return (%)		(1.25	)		22.39			41.00			(39.10	)		28.09
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.80			0.79			0.76			0.73			0.74
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.80			0.79			0.76			0.72			0.74
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.22			2.20			3.35			2.48			2.05
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		57.9			101.2			108.4			134.4			120.4
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	168.9		$	187.6		$	565.4		$	680.0		$	1,007.2

	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	11.77		$	9.95		$	7.24		$	13.22		$	10.34
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.24			0.19			0.25			0.22			0.23
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.40	)		1.96			2.64			(4.98	)		2.65
Total from investment operations		(0.16	)		2.15			2.89			(4.76	)		2.88
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.28	)		(0.33	)		(0.18	)		(0.53	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.69	)		0.00
Total distributions		(0.28	)		(0.33	)		(0.18	)		(1.22	)		0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	11.33		$	11.77		$	9.95		$	7.24		$	13.22
Total Return (%)		(1.48	)		22.01			40.82			(39.26	)		27.85
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.05			1.04			1.01			0.98			1.02
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		1.05			1.04			1.01			0.97			1.02
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.99			1.83			2.95			2.23			1.94
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		57.9			101.2			108.4			134.4			120.4
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	218.5		$	181.2		$	101.6		$	59.1		$	79.0

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A and B Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to futures transactions, foreign currency transactions, passive foreign investment companies (PFICs), deferred trustees’ compensation, capital loss carryforwards, forward transactions, Real Estate Investment Trust (REITs), premium amortization adjustment, contingent payment debt instrument adjustments, broker commission recapture, ASC-860 (Lehman Brothers counterparty gain/loss) adjustment and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Securities Lending - The Portfolio may lend its portfolio securities to certain qualified brokers who borrow securities in order to complete certain securities transactions. By lending its portfolio securities, the Portfolio attempts to increase its net investment income through the receipt of income on the loaned securities. Any gain or loss in the market price of the loaned securities that might occur and any interest earned or dividends declared during the term of the loan would accrue to the account of the Portfolio.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

The Trust has entered into a securities lending arrangement with the custodian, State Street Bank and Trust Company (the “custodian”). Under this arrangement, the custodian is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral at least equal to 102% of the market value of the loaned securities (105% for foreign equity securities), at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities must be maintained for the duration of the loan. Cash collateral is generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The Navigator Portfolio is a registered money market fund which invests in a variety of high quality U.S. dollar-denominated instruments. If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower shall be required to deliver, by the close of business on the following business day, an additional amount of collateral so that the total amount of posted collateral equals at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of net income (income after the deduction of expenses and fees of the Navigator Portfolio) on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the custodian and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by U.S. Treasuries, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the custodian. The risks associated with lending portfolio securities include, but are not limited to, possible delays in receiving additional collateral or in the recovery of the loaned securities, possible loss of rights in the collateral should the borrower fail financially, as well as risk of loss in the value of the collateral or the value of the investments made with the collateral. Net interest income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2011 is disclosed in the footnotes to the Statement of Operations. Any outstanding loans by the Portfolio at December 31, 2011 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments.

Foreign Currency Translation - The books and records of the Portfolio are maintained in U.S. dollars. The values of securities, currencies and other assets and liabilities denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars are translated into U.S. dollars based upon foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period. Purchases and sales of investment securities, income and expenses are translated on the respective dates of such transactions. Since the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, it is not practical to isolate that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates from that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities. Such fluctuations are included in the net realized and unrealized gain or loss on investments.

Net realized foreign exchange gains or losses arise from activity in forward foreign currency exchange contracts, sales of foreign currency, currency gains or losses realized between the trade and settlement dates on securities transactions, and the difference between the amounts of dividends, interest, and foreign withholding taxes recorded by the Portfolio and the U.S. dollar equivalent of the amounts actually received or paid by the Portfolio. Gains and losses attributable to foreign currency exchange rates on sales of securities are recorded as Net realized gains and losses on investments. Net unrealized foreign exchange gains and losses arise from changes in the value of assets and liabilities, other than investment securities, resulting from changes in foreign exchange rates.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

Forward Commitments and When-Issued and Delayed-Delivery Securities - The Portfolio may purchase securities on a when-issued or delayed delivery basis and may purchase or sell securities on a forward commitment basis. Settlement of such transactions normally occurs within a month or more after the purchase or sale commitment is made. The Portfolio may purchase securities under such conditions only with the intention of actually acquiring them, but may enter into a separate agreement to sell the securities before the settlement date. Since the value of securities purchased may fluctuate prior to settlement, the Portfolio may be required to pay more at settlement than the security is worth. In addition, the purchaser is not entitled to any of the interest earned prior to settlement. Upon making a commitment to purchase a security on a when-issued, delayed delivery or forward commitment basis, the Portfolio will hold liquid assets in a segregated account at the Portfolio’s custodian bank worth at least the equivalent of the amount due. The liquid assets will be monitored on a daily basis and adjusted as necessary to maintain the necessary value. As of December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had no forward commitments and when-issued and delayed-delivery securities.

Directed Brokerage Agreement - The Trust has entered into a directed brokerage arrangement with State Street Global Markets (“SSGM”). Under this arrangement, the Portfolio directs certain trades to SSGM in return for a recapture credit. SSGM issues a cash rebate to the Portfolio. Amounts paid to the Portfolio are shown separately as broker commission recapture on the Statement of Operations of the Portfolio. Additionally, these amounts have been excluded from the calculation of the ratio of net expenses to average net assets presented in the Financial Highlights for each share class.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

High Yield Debt Securities - The Portfolio may invest in high yield debt securities, or “junk bonds,” which are securities that are rated below “investment grade” or, if not rated, are of equivalent quality. A portfolio with high yield debt securities generally will be exposed to greater market risk and credit risk than a portfolio that invests only in investment grade debt securities because issuers of high yield debt securities are less secure financially, are more likely to default on their obligations, and their securities are more sensitive to interest rate changes and downturns in the economy. In addition, the secondary market for lower-rated debt securities may not be as liquid as that for more highly rated debt securities. As a result, the Portfolio’s Subadviser may find it more difficult to value lower-rated debt securities or sell them and may have to sell them at prices significantly lower than the values assigned to them by the Portfolio.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$2,812,145		0.70	%	First $ 500 Million
		0.65	%	$ 500 Million to $1 Billion
		0.60	%	Over $1 Billion

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Distribution Agreement and Plan - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A and Class B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B distribution plan provides that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B Shares. However, under the Class B distribution agreement, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B distribution plan are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B distribution plan and distribution agreement, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$998,909	$	260,213,542	$	5,777,050	$	220,795,356

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - The Portfolio may enter into forward foreign currency exchange contracts to hedge its portfolio holdings against the risk of future movements in certain foreign currency exchange rates. When entering into these contracts, the Portfolio agrees to receive or deliver a fixed quantity of foreign currency for an agreed-upon price on an agreed upon future date. These contracts are valued daily and the Portfolio’s net equity therein, representing unrealized gain or loss on the contracts as measured by the difference between the forward foreign exchange rates at the dates of entry into the contracts and the forward foreign exchange rates at the value date, is included in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. When a contract is closed, the Portfolio recognizes a realized gain or loss equal to the difference between the value of the contract at the time it was opened and the value at the time it was closed.

Realized and unrealized gains and losses on forward foreign currency exchange contracts are included in the Statement of Operations. These contracts involve market and/or credit risk in excess of the amount recognized in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

The use of forward foreign currency exchange contracts does not eliminate fluctuations in the underlying prices of the securities of the Portfolio, but it does establish a rate of exchange that can be achieved in the future. Although forward foreign currency exchange contracts may limit the risk of loss due to a decline in the value of the currency holdings, they also limit any potential gain that might result should the value of the currency increase. In addition, the Portfolio could be exposed to risks if the counterparties to the contracts are unable to meet the terms of the contracts. The Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit risk, as opposed to investment and other types of risk, in respect of foreign currency forward contracts is typically the value of the currency the Portfolio is due from its counterparty at settlement plus the value of the currency paid, if any, to the Portfolio’s counterparty.

At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had the following derivatives, categorized by risk exposure:

	Asset Derivatives			Liability Derivatives
Risk Exposure	Statement of Assets and Liabilities Location	Fair Value		Statement of Assets and Liabilities Location	Fair Value
Currency	Unrealized appreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts	$	12,726	Unrealized depreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts	$	15,709
Total		$	12,726		$	15,709

Transactions in derivative instruments during the year ended December 31, 2011, were as follows:

Statement of Operations Location - Net Realized Gain (Loss)	Currency
Foreign currency transactions	$	3,155
Statement of Operations Location - Net Change in Unrealized Gain (Loss)	Currency
Foreign currency transactions	$	(28,559	)

For the year ended December 31, 2011, the average amount or number per contract outstanding for each derivative type was as follows:

Derivative Description	Average Notional or Face Amount(a)
Foreign currency transactions	$	3,415,647

(a) Averages are based on activity levels during 2011.

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts to Buy:

Settlement Date	Counterparty	Contracts to Buy			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Net Unrealized Depreciation
8/22/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		11,630,000	CNY	$	1,842,377	$	1,847,498	$	(5,121	)
3/12/2012	Credit Suisse London		615,000,000	KRW		531,430		541,159		(9,729	)
Net Unrealized Depreciation									$	(14,850	)

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts to Sell:

Settlement Date	Counterparty	Contracts to Deliver			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Net Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation)
3/21/2012	Credit Suisse London		490,000	AUD	$	497,959	$	497,100	$	(859	)
3/2/2012	Credit Suisse London		220,000	BRL		116,484		116,680		196
Net Unrealized Appreciation									$	(663	)

Forward Foreign Cross-Currency Exchange Contracts:

Settlement Date	Counterparty	Contracts to Buy			Contracts to Deliver			Net  Unrealized Appreciation
1/31/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		41,137,980	JPY		676,000	SGD	$	12,530

AUD— Australian Dollar

BRL— Brazilian Real

CNY— China Yuan Renminbi

JPY— Japanaese yen

KRW— South Korean Won

SGD— Singapore Dollar

7. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

8. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

25

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

9. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gains				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$9,728,443	$	23,759,543	$	—	$	—	$	9,728,443	$	23,759,543

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards			Total
$9,961,535	$	—	$	15,282,595	$	(104,019,653	)	$	(78,775,523	)

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses.

As of December 31, 2011, the post-enactment accumulated capital losses were $638,635 and the pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards and expiration dates were as follows:

Expiring 12/31/2016	Expiring 12/31/2017		Total
$26,398,654	$	77,620,999	$	104,019,653

10. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

26

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 28, 2012

27

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

28

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

29

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

30

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

31

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the one-, three- and five- year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its blended benchmark, 60% MSCI World Index/40% Citigroup World Government Bond Index, for the one- year period ended September 30, 2011, and outperformed its blended benchmark for the three- and five- year periods ended September 30, 2011. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance, as well as any plans with respect to the Portfolio. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s overall performance was satisfactory.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to

32

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the Expense Group median, the Expense Universe median, and the Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were above the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

33

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the Loomis Sayles Global Markets Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee and sub-advisory fee each contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board noted that the Portfolio had not yet reached the specified asset level at which a breakpoint to its contractual advisory fee would be triggered. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s management fees are below the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

34

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Managed by Lord, Abbett & Co. LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A, B, and E shares of the Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio returned 4.83%, 4.46%, and 4.69%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmarks, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index¹, Bank of America Merrill Lynch High Yield Master II Constrained Index² and the Hybrid Index³, returned 7.84%, 4.37%, and 3.18%, respectively.

Market Environment/Conditions

Concerns about sovereign credit risk mounted in 2011 as bond markets pressured several countries in the European Union (E.U.) to reduce their respective budget deficits. As a result of the uncertainty created by a push toward austerity and the global financial system’s exposure to sovereign debt, investors continued to seek the relative safety of U.S. Treasury securities during the year.

The increased demand for U.S. debt reduced the yield on the 10-year Treasury note, from 3.38% at the beginning of the year to 1.89% as the year concluded. European countries were not the only ones to feel pressure to reduce budget deficits, however. Treasury yields declined even after Standard & Poor’s downgraded the United States’ credit rating to ‘AA+’ from ‘AAA.’ The credit rating agency cited the polarized political environment and the growing federal budget deficit as the rationale for its downgrade following the debt ceiling debate in Congress that occurred during the summer.

Although the congressional “supercommittee” that was formed to address the U.S. budget deficit ended in a stalemate late in November 2011, the panel’s failure did not immediately prompt further downgrades from the credit rating agencies. However, Fitch Ratings revised its outlook on the country’s debt to ‘negative’ from ‘stable’ as a result of the impasse.

The Federal Reserve (Fed) also influenced long-term Treasury yields in 2011. The Fed’s second quantitative easing program (QEII) to purchase long-term Treasuries concluded at the end of the second quarter 2011, and the Fed announced a maturity extension program—also known as “Operation Twist”—in late September 2011. The latter program consists of $400 billion in purchases of Treasury securities with maturities of 6 to 30 years by the end of the second quarter of 2012. In terms of short-term rates, the Fed pledged in August 2011 to keep the Federal Funds rate in the range of 0–25 basis points through at least mid-2013.

The Fed’s easy monetary policy was justified by a stubbornly high unemployment rate, which stood at 8.5% in December, and a decelerating pace of inflation. The Consumer Price Index recorded a year-over-year increase of 3.5% in October, down from an annualized pace of 3.9% in September.

While Treasury securities were one of the best performing asset classes as the year drew to a close, several categories of municipal bonds, which often move in tandem with Treasuries, outperformed U.S. government bonds.

Elsewhere, corporate credit conditions remained positive with historically low default rates expected to continue into 2012. Amid this environment, corporate debt asset classes, such as investment-grade corporate bonds, high-yield bonds, and floating-rate loans, also posted positive returns during the year. One fixed income asset class that stood out with a negative return was the convertible bond market.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

A significant contributor to performance was security selection within the Portfolio’s high yield allocation. The Portfolio’s underweight in convertibles also added to performance, as convertibles underperformed high yield and investment grade bonds. The majority of the sectors within the Portfolio contributed to performance. Among those contributing the most on an absolute basis were in Energy. The flight to quality experienced throughout much of the year resulted in lower quality bonds underperforming higher-rated bonds. Since the Portfolio remained underweight in CCC-rated securities overall throughout the 12-month period, this added to performance.

The following industries detracted from absolute performance: automakers, beverage, electric-generation, and multi-line insurance. As investors looked for safety in Treasuries and higher rated investment grade bonds, lower rated bonds underperformed. At period end, the Portfolio continued to have a high yield bias, as we saw good value in high yield corporates amidst strong credit fundamentals and historically low default rates. Within the investment grade portion, the Portfolio continued to maintain little to no allocation to Treasuries, as we saw better relative value in corporates. This detracted from performance as Treasuries outperformed investment grade corporates.

Christopher J. Towle, CFA, Partner & Director

Lord, Abbett & Co. LLC

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Managed by Lord, Abbett & Co. LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Issuers

	% of Net Assets
SunGard Data Systems, Inc.		1.1
National Fuel Gas Co.		0.8
Crown Cork & Seal, Inc.		0.7
Nuveen Investments, Inc.		0.7
HCA, Inc.		0.7
Roper Industries, Inc.		0.7
El Paso Corp.		0.7
CIT Group, Inc.		0.7
Continental Resources, Inc.		0.6
Windstream Corp.		0.6

Top Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities		63.0
Cash & Cash Equivalents		17.9
Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities		8.5
Convertible Bonds		6.9
Convertible Preferred Stocks		1.6
Common Stocks		1.0
Preferred Stocks		0.9
Municipals		0.2

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio managed by Lord, Abbett & Co. LLC vs. Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index¹, BofA Merrill Lynch High Yield Master II Constrained Index² and Hybrid Index³

	Average Annual Return4 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year		Since Inception5
Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio—Class A		4.83%		7.24%		7.38%		—
Class B		4.46%		6.96%		7.11%		—
Class E		4.69%		7.09%		—		7.35%
Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index1		7.84%		6.50%		5.78%		—
BofA Merrill Lynch High Yield Master II Constrained Index2		4.37%		7.55%		8.74%		—
Hybrid Index3		3.18%		6.32%		7.42%		—

The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other classes of shares because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹The Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index is a broad-based benchmark that measures the investment grade, U.S. dollar-denominated, fixed-rate taxable bond market, including Treasuries, government-related and corporate securities, mortgage-backed securities, asset-backed securities, and commercial mortgage-backed securities.

² The Bank of America Merrill Lynch U.S. High Yield Master II Constrained Index is a market value-weighted index of all domestic and yankee high-yield bonds with maturities of one year or more and have a credit rating lower than BBB-/Baa3, but are not in default. This index limits any individual issuer to a maximum of 2% benchmark exposure.

³ The Hybrid Index is comprised of 60% Merrill Lynch High Yield Master II Constrained Index, 20% Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index, 20% BofA Merrill Lynch All Convertible Index.

The BofA Merrill Lynch All Convertible Index is composed of approximately 700 issues of only convertible bonds and preferreds of all qualities.

⁴“Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

⁵ Inception of Class A shares is 5/1/1996. Inception of the Class B shares is 3/22/2001. Inception of the Class E shares is 4/1/2002.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The indexes do not include fees or expenses and are not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A
Actual		0.55%	$	1,000.00	$	1,000.00	$	2.77
Hypothetical*		0.55%		1,000.00		1,022.43		2.80
Class B
Actual		0.80%	$	1,000.00	$	997.60	$	4.03
Hypothetical*		0.80%		1,000.00		1,021.17		4.08
Class E
Actual		0.70%	$	1,000.00	$	999.20	$	3.53
Hypothetical*		0.70%		1,000.00		1,021.67		3.57

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—74.7% of Net Assets

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Aerospace & Defense—1.7%
Esterline Technologies Corp. 6.625%, 03/01/17 (a)		2,275,000	$	2,366,000
7.000%, 08/01/20		2,100,000		2,226,000
GeoEye, Inc. 9.625%, 10/01/15		3,000,000		3,300,000
8.625%, 10/01/16		1,000,000		1,035,000
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. 6.875%, 03/15/18 (144A)		2,000,000		1,970,000
7.125%, 03/15/21 (144A)		3,500,000		3,447,500
L-3 Communications Corp. 6.375%, 10/15/15 (a)		1,762,000		1,810,455
Spirit Aerosystems, Inc. 7.500%, 10/01/17		1,500,000		1,635,000
6.750%, 12/15/20		6,300,000		6,615,000
Triumph Group, Inc. 8.000%, 11/15/17		1,500,000		1,605,000
				26,009,955
Airlines—0.5%
Delta Air Lines, Inc. Class 2A 4.950%, 05/23/19		810,235		820,363
UAL 2007-1 Pass-Through Trust 6.636%, 07/02/22		1,741,587		1,741,587
United Air Lines, Inc. 9.875%, 08/01/13 (144A)		3,000,000		3,082,500
12.000%, 11/01/13 (144A)		2,000,000		2,095,000
				7,739,450
Auto Components—1.7%
Armored Autogroup, Inc. 9.250%, 11/01/18 (144A)		3,350,000		2,604,625
Cooper-Standard Automotive, Inc. 8.500%, 05/01/18		2,750,000		2,890,937
Dana Holding Corp. 6.500%, 02/15/19 (a)		2,750,000		2,791,250
6.750%, 02/15/21 (a)		2,500,000		2,575,000
Exide Technologies 8.625%, 02/01/18 (a)		400,000		310,000
Stanadyne Corp. Series 1 10.000%, 08/15/14		2,075,000		1,774,125
Stanadyne Holdings, Inc. 12.000%, 02/15/15 (b)		4,000,000		3,745,000
Stoneridge, Inc. 9.500%, 10/15/17 (144A)		1,725,000		1,776,750
Tenneco, Inc. 6.875%, 12/15/20		1,250,000		1,287,500
Auto Components—(Continued)
TRW Automotive, Inc. 7.250%, 03/15/17 (144A)		2,500,000	$	2,687,500
8.875%, 12/01/17 (144A)		2,500,000		2,725,000
				25,167,687
Automobiles—0.5%
Chrysler Group LLC 8.250%, 06/15/21 (144A) (a)		3,200,000		2,928,000
Ford Motor Co. 7.450%, 07/16/31 (a)		3,000,000		3,615,000
Tomkins LLC/Tomkins, Inc. 9.000%, 10/01/18		1,350,000		1,503,562
				8,046,562
Biotechnology—0.1%
Gilead Sciences, Inc. 3.050%, 12/01/16		400,000		409,859
Grifols, Inc. 8.250%, 02/01/18		1,500,000		1,582,500
				1,992,359
Building Products—0.5%
Griffon Corp. 7.125%, 04/01/18 (a)		1,575,000		1,567,125
Masco Corp. 7.125%, 03/15/20 (a)		3,500,000		3,537,716
Owens Corning, Inc. 9.000%, 06/15/19		1,625,000		1,941,427
				7,046,268
Capital Markets—1.4%
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The) 5.250%, 07/27/21		600,000		586,409
Lazard Group LLC 7.125%, 05/15/15		4,300,000		4,620,737
Nuveen Investments, Inc. 10.500%, 11/15/15 (a)		10,250,000		10,224,375
10.500%, 11/15/15 (144A)		1,075,000		1,061,563
Raymond James Financial, Inc. 8.600%, 08/15/19		4,075,000		4,742,171
				21,235,255
Chemicals—2.7%
Airgas, Inc. 7.125%, 10/01/18		1,900,000		2,034,835
Celanese U.S. Holdings LLC 6.625%, 10/15/18 (a)		5,000,000		5,337,500

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Chemicals—(Continued)
CF Industries, Inc. 7.125%, 05/01/20		2,500,000	$	2,962,500
Chemtura Corp. 7.875%, 09/01/18		2,500,000		2,587,500
Huntsman International LLC 8.625%, 03/15/20 (a)		5,500,000		5,857,500
Lyondell Chemical Co. 8.000%, 11/01/17		838,000		919,705
Momentive Performance Materials, Inc. 9.000%, 01/15/21		3,000,000		2,295,000
Mosaic Global Holdings, Inc. 7.300%, 01/15/28		4,900,000		6,046,855
Nalco Co. 8.250%, 05/15/17 (a)		1,500,000		1,702,500
6.625%, 01/15/19 (144A)		2,500,000		2,893,750
Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc. 7.500%, 11/15/14 (a)		4,500,000		4,578,750
Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. (The) 6.625%, 12/15/20 (144A)		4,500,000		4,590,000
				41,806,395
Commercial Banks—1.8%
CIT Group, Inc. 7.000%, 05/02/16 (144A)		10,000,000		10,012,500
Discover Bank Series BKNT 8.700%, 11/18/19		2,000,000		2,283,690
Huntington Bancshares, Inc. 7.000%, 12/15/20 (a)		2,000,000		2,270,506
Regions Bank 6.450%, 06/26/37		4,000,000		3,350,000
Series BKNT 7.500%, 05/15/18 (a)		1,500,000		1,500,000
SVB Financial Group 5.375%, 09/15/20 (a)		2,150,000		2,206,440
Zions Bancorporation 7.750%, 09/23/14		5,500,000		5,835,164
				27,458,300
Commercial Services & Supplies—1.5%
Avis Budget Car Rental LLC/Avis Budget Finance, Inc. 9.625%, 03/15/18		3,500,000		3,640,000
9.750%, 03/15/20		1,100,000		1,135,750
Brambles USA, Inc. 5.350%, 04/01/20 (144A)		3,350,000		3,580,189
Commercial Services & Supplies—(Continued)
Clean Harbors, Inc. 7.625%, 08/15/16		3,300,000	$	3,522,750
Deluxe Corp. 7.375%, 06/01/15 (a)		3,900,000		3,968,250
Iron Mountain, Inc. 7.750%, 10/01/19 (a)		2,100,000		2,228,625
Steelcase, Inc. 6.375%, 02/15/21		3,000,000		3,193,446
WCA Waste Corp. 7.500%, 06/15/19 (144A)		1,000,000		1,015,000
				22,284,010
Communications Equipment—1.8%
Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc. 6.450%, 03/15/29 (a)		3,925,000		2,835,812
Avaya, Inc. 7.000%, 04/01/19 (144A) (a)		5,000,000		4,875,000
Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. 6.625%, 01/15/18		3,500,000		3,657,500
6.875%, 01/15/20 (a)		1,900,000		2,033,000
CommScope, Inc. 8.250%, 01/15/19 (144A)		7,500,000		7,537,500
MasTec, Inc. 7.625%, 02/01/17 (a)		3,000,000		3,135,000
ViaSat, Inc. 8.875%, 09/15/16		2,500,000		2,575,000
				26,648,812
Construction & Engineering—0.4%
Dycom Investments, Inc. 7.125%, 01/15/21		4,375,000		4,440,625
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corp. 7.375%, 02/01/19		2,300,000		2,288,500
				6,729,125
Consumer Finance—1.1%
Ally Financial, Inc. 8.300%, 02/12/15		4,000,000		4,230,000
7.500%, 09/15/20 (a)		3,000,000		3,041,250
American Express Credit Corp. 7.300%, 08/20/13		3,000,000		3,257,043
Ford Motor Credit Co. LLC 5.875%, 08/02/21		1,450,000		1,513,970
Hyundai Capital America 3.750%, 04/06/16 (144A)		850,000		847,891

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Consumer Finance—(Continued)
SLM Corp. Series MTN 6.250%, 01/25/16		1,300,000	$	1,265,334
Springleaf Finance Corp. Series J 6.900%, 12/15/17		2,900,000		2,102,500
				16,257,988
Containers & Packaging—2.2%
AEP Industries, Inc. 8.250%, 04/15/19		2,500,000		2,550,000
Ball Corp. 6.625%, 03/15/18 (a)		1,950,000		2,008,500
6.750%, 09/15/20 (a)		2,000,000		2,185,000
Crown Cork & Seal, Inc. 7.375%, 12/15/26		11,000,000		11,385,000
Longview Fibre Paper & Packaging, Inc. 8.000%, 06/01/16 (144A)		3,000,000		3,015,000
Packaging Dynamics Corp. 8.750%, 02/01/16 (144A)		1,500,000		1,507,500
Reynolds Group Issuer, Inc./Reynolds Group Issuer LLC 8.750%, 10/15/16 (144A) (a)		2,000,000		2,115,000
9.250%, 05/15/18 (144A) (a)		2,600,000		2,502,500
Sealed Air Corp. 8.375%, 09/15/21 (144A) (a)		3,200,000		3,552,000
6.875%, 07/15/33 (144A)		2,350,000		2,056,837
				32,877,337
Distributors—0.2%
VWR Funding, Inc. Series B 10.250%, 07/15/15 (c)		3,000,000		3,112,500
Diversified Consumer Services—0.2%
Affinion Group, Inc. 11.500%, 10/15/15		3,000,000		2,632,500
Diversified Financial Services—1.0%
Antero Resources Finance Corp. 7.250%, 08/01/19 (144A)		2,500,000		2,575,000
Cantor Fitzgerald L.P. 7.875%, 10/15/19 (144A)		2,550,000		2,494,387
CEDC Finance Corp. International, Inc. 9.125%, 12/01/16 (144A)		1,500,000		1,068,750
International Lease Finance Corp. 8.750%, 03/15/17		6,500,000		6,711,250
Diversified Financial Services—(Continued)
6.250%, 05/15/19 (a)		1,100,000	$	1,017,627
8.250%, 12/15/20 (a)		1,000,000		1,012,500
Washington Mutual Bank/Henderson N.V. 6.875%, 06/15/11 (d)		6,000,000		15,600
ZFS Finance USA Trust V 6.500%, 05/09/37 (144A) (a) (e)		630,000		570,150
				15,465,264
Diversified Telecommunication Services—2.7%
CenturyLink, Inc. 6.450%, 06/15/21		1,700,000		1,706,115
Series Q 6.150%, 09/15/19 (a)		6,000,000		6,036,564
Ceridian Corp. 11.250%, 11/15/15 (a)		3,825,000		3,002,625
Cogent Communications Group, Inc. 8.375%, 02/15/18 (144A)		1,790,000		1,839,225
CPI International, Inc. 8.000%, 02/15/18		2,500,000		2,093,750
GCI, Inc. 6.750%, 06/01/21 (a)		1,550,000		1,519,000
Level 3 Escrow, Inc. 8.125%, 07/01/19 (144A)		1,550,000		1,530,625
NII Capital Corp. 10.000%, 08/15/16 (a)		2,500,000		2,850,000
8.875%, 12/15/19 (a)		2,500,000		2,643,750
7.625%, 04/01/21		1,750,000		1,745,625
Sprint Capital Corp. 6.900%, 05/01/19 (a)		9,000,000		7,447,500
Windstream Corp. 7.000%, 03/15/19 (a)		6,500,000		6,597,500
7.500%, 04/01/23		2,500,000		2,481,250
				41,493,529
Electric Utilities—1.5%
Black Hills Corp. 5.875%, 07/15/20		2,000,000		2,308,122
Coso Geothermal Power Holdings 7.000%, 07/15/26 (144A)		3,382,755		2,456,662
Duquesne Light Holdings, Inc. 6.400%, 09/15/20 (144A)		5,000,000		5,325,755
Edison Mission Energy 7.000%, 05/15/17		1,000,000		655,000

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Electric Utilities—(Continued)
Mirant Americas Generation LLC 9.125%, 05/01/31		3,000,000	$	2,730,000
Nisource Finance Corp. 6.150%, 03/01/13		991,000		1,041,038
Northern States Power/Minnesota 5.250%, 03/01/18		2,000,000		2,381,448
Peco Energy Co. 5.350%, 03/01/18 (a)		3,125,000		3,695,269
Texas Competitive Electric Holdings Co. LLC/TCEH Finance, Inc. 10.250%, 11/01/15		1,525,000		549,000
11.500%, 10/01/20 (144A)(a)		2,250,000		1,920,937
				23,063,231
Electrical Equipment—0.9%
Belden, Inc. 7.000%, 03/15/17		4,250,000		4,265,937
9.250%, 06/15/19		2,300,000		2,466,750
Emerson Electric Co. 5.250%, 10/15/18		3,500,000		4,145,166
Roper Industries, Inc. 6.250%, 09/01/19		2,175,000		2,573,969
				13,451,822
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—0.2%
Sterling Merger, Inc. 11.000%, 10/01/19 (144A)(a)		2,800,000		2,744,000
Energy Equipment & Services—1.7%
Alta Wind Holdings LLC 7.000%, 06/30/35 (144A)		2,266,878		2,499,469
Basic Energy Services, Inc. 7.750%, 02/15/19		2,750,000		2,784,375
Cameron International Corp. 6.375%, 07/15/18		1,920,000		2,276,918
Complete Production Services, Inc. 8.000%, 12/15/16		3,000,000		3,135,000
Dresser-Rand Group, Inc. 6.500%, 05/01/21 (144A)		3,500,000		3,596,250
Murray Energy Corp. 10.250%, 10/15/15 (144A)		1,750,000		1,745,625
Oil States International, Inc. 6.500%, 06/01/19		3,175,000		3,262,313
SEACOR Holdings, Inc. 7.375%, 10/01/19		4,150,000		4,383,574
Energy Equipment & Services—(Continued)
SESI LLC 6.375%, 05/01/19		1,750,000	$	1,789,375
Unit Corp. 6.625%, 05/15/21		550,000		552,750
				26,025,649
Entertainment & Leisure—0.2%
River Rock Entertainment Authority (The) 9.000%, 11/01/18		4,665,000		3,732,000
Food & Staples Retailing—0.9%
Ingles Markets, Inc. 8.875%, 05/15/17		3,000,000		3,262,500
Rite Aid Corp. 9.375%, 12/15/15 (a)		2,250,000		2,182,500
10.250%, 10/15/19 (a)		2,000,000		2,215,000
Stater Bros Holdings, Inc. 7.375%, 11/15/18		2,000,000		2,120,000
SUPERVALU, Inc. 7.500%, 11/15/14 (a)		3,600,000		3,681,000
				13,461,000
Food Products—0.7%
Bunge NA Finance L.P. 5.900%, 04/01/17		1,375,000		1,503,252
Del Monte Corp. 7.625%, 02/15/19 (a)		1,500,000		1,447,500
Dole Food Co., Inc. 8.750%, 07/15/13 (a)		6,250,000		6,640,625
Pinnacle Foods Finance LLC/Pinnacle Foods Finance Corp. 9.250%, 04/01/15		1,000,000		1,031,250
				10,622,627
Gas Utilities—0.9%
Ferrellgas L.P./Ferrellgas Finance Corp. 6.500%, 05/01/21 (a)		1,750,000		1,548,750
National Fuel Gas Co. 6.500%, 04/15/18		7,200,000		8,169,898
8.750%, 05/01/19		1,750,000		2,166,617
4.900%, 12/01/21		1,500,000		1,540,906
Suburban Propane Partners L.P./Suburban Energy Finance Corp. 7.375%, 03/15/20		1,000,000		1,045,000
				14,471,171

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—0.8%
Bausch & Lomb, Inc. 9.875%, 11/01/15		5,000,000	$	5,275,000
Biomet, Inc. 10.000%, 10/15/17 (a)		5,000,000		5,425,000
Kinetic Concepts, Inc. 10.500%, 11/01/18 (144A)		2,000,000		1,965,000
				12,665,000
Health Care Providers & Services—3.7%
Capella Healthcare, Inc. 9.250%, 07/01/17		2,000,000		2,040,000
Centene Corp. 5.750%, 06/01/17 (a)		2,900,000		2,900,000
Community Health Systems, Inc. 8.875%, 07/15/15 (a)		6,233,000		6,451,155
8.000%, 11/15/19 (144A) (a)		2,500,000		2,531,250
HCA Holdings, Inc. 7.750%, 05/15/21 (a)		6,150,000		6,288,375
HCA, Inc. 9.875%, 02/15/17		764,000		838,490
6.500%, 02/15/20		2,000,000		2,080,000
7.875%, 02/15/20		2,100,000		2,278,500
7.500%, 02/15/22 (a)		5,750,000		5,893,750
HealthSouth Corp. 8.125%, 02/15/20		3,400,000		3,442,500
inVentiv Health, Inc. 10.000%, 08/15/18 (144A)		700,000		644,000
Kindred Healthcare, Inc. 8.250%, 06/01/19		2,800,000		2,366,000
Select Medical Corp. 7.625%, 02/01/15 (a)		3,000,000		2,835,000
Tenet Healthcare Corp. 9.250%, 02/01/15 (a)		2,500,000		2,640,625
8.875%, 07/01/19		1,250,000		1,409,375
United Surgical Partners International, Inc. 8.875%, 05/01/17 (a)		5,000,000		5,012,500
UnitedHealth Group, Inc. 4.875%, 04/01/13		2,269,000		2,371,414
Vanguard Health Holding Co. II LLC/Vanguard Holding Co. II, Inc. 8.000%, 02/01/18 (a)		5,000,000		4,987,500
				57,010,434
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—4.2%
Ameristar Casinos, Inc. 7.500%, 04/15/21 (a)		2,000,000	$	2,070,000
Boyd Gaming Corp. 7.125%, 02/01/16 (a)		3,500,000		3,045,000
Caesars Entertainment Operating Co., Inc. 5.625%, 06/01/15 (a)		3,500,000		1,916,250
12.750%, 04/15/18		5,250,000		4,200,000
CityCenter Holdings LLC/CityCenter Finance Corp. 7.625%, 01/15/16 (144A)		2,000,000		2,060,000
10.750%, 01/15/17 (144A) (a) (c)		1,055,582		1,093,847
DineEquity, Inc. 9.500%, 10/30/18 (a)		4,500,000		4,854,375
Downstream Development Authority of the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma 10.500%, 07/01/19 (144A) (a)		2,350,000		2,232,500
Fiesta Restaurant Group 8.875%, 08/15/16 (144A)		780,000		787,800
Gaylord Entertainment Co. 6.750%, 11/15/14		1,000,000		995,000
Hyatt Hotels Corp. 5.750%, 08/15/15 (144A)		3,000,000		3,215,247
Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc. 7.000%, 03/01/14 (a)		4,000,000		3,760,000
Marina District Finance Co., Inc. 9.875%, 08/15/18 (a)		3,500,000		3,211,250
MGM Resorts International 6.625%, 07/15/15 (a)		4,000,000		3,820,000
Midwest Gaming Borrower LLC/Midwest Finance Corp. 11.625%, 04/15/16 (144A)		1,750,000		1,907,500
Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority 11.500%, 11/01/17 (144A) (a)		4,000,000		3,710,000
Rare Restaurant Group LLC/RRG Finance Corp. 9.250%, 05/15/14 (144A)		2,000,000		1,610,000
Snoqualmie Entertainment Authority 9.125%, 02/01/15 (144A)		3,500,000		3,395,000
Speedway Motorsports, Inc. 8.750%, 06/01/16 (a)		2,500,000		2,737,500
Station Casinos, Inc. 6.500%, 02/01/14 (d)(f)		4,500,000		0

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—(Continued)
Sugarhouse HSP Gaming Prop Mezz L.P./Sugarhouse HSP Gaming Finance Corp. 8.625%, 04/15/16 (144A)		4,000,000	$	4,120,000
Universal City Development Partners 8.875%, 11/15/15		975,000		1,084,688
Wendy’s/Arby’s Restaurants LLC 10.000%, 07/15/16		2,600,000		2,873,000
Wyndham Worldwide Corp. 5.750%, 02/01/18 (a)		1,250,000		1,324,972
Wynn Las Vegas LLC/Wynn Las Vegas Capital Corp. 7.875%, 11/01/17 (a)		2,750,000		3,031,875
7.750%, 08/15/20 (a)		1,300,000		1,449,500
				64,505,304
Household Durables—0.7%
American Standard Americas 10.750%, 01/15/16 (144A)		3,000,000		1,800,000
KB Home 9.100%, 09/15/17		3,000,000		2,872,500
Lennar Corp. Series B 12.250%, 06/01/17 (a)		2,000,000		2,390,000
Whirlpool Corp. 8.600%, 05/01/14		3,177,000		3,547,829
				10,610,329
Household Products—0.3%
Solo Cup Co. 8.500%, 02/15/14 (a)		2,500,000		2,312,500
10.500%, 11/01/13 (a)		1,500,000		1,530,000
				3,842,500
Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders—1.0%
AES Corp. (The) 8.000%, 10/15/17		4,500,000		4,972,500
7.375%, 07/01/21 (144A) (a)		2,000,000		2,165,000
DPL, Inc. 7.250%, 10/15/21 (144A) (a)		2,650,000		2,868,625
PSEG Power LLC 5.320%, 09/15/16		5,000,000		5,582,730
				15,588,855
Insurance—1.0%
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. 6.600%, 05/15/17		3,700,000		3,926,503
Insurance—(Continued)
Genworth Financial, Inc. 7.625%, 09/24/21 (a)		4,350,000	$	4,074,014
HUB International Holdings, Inc. 9.000%, 12/15/14 (144A)		1,500,000		1,511,250
Liberty Mutual Group, Inc. 10.750%, 06/15/58 (144A) (e)		1,500,000		1,897,500
USI Holdings Corp. 4.332%, 11/15/14 (144A) (e)		3,950,000		3,624,125
				15,033,392
Internet & Catalog Retail—0.2%
Expedia, Inc. 8.500%, 07/01/16		2,695,000		2,906,792
Internet Software & Services—0.3%
Equinix, Inc. 8.125%, 03/01/18 (a)		2,000,000		2,190,000
7.000%, 07/15/21		2,450,000		2,590,875
Travelport LLC 9.000%, 03/01/16 (a)		900,000		501,750
				5,282,625
IT Services—1.6%
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. 7.625%, 07/15/17		1,150,000		1,250,625
First Data Corp. 8.250%, 01/15/21 (144A) (a)		4,000,000		3,600,000
12.625%, 01/15/21		1,000,000		875,000
ManTech International Corp. 7.250%, 04/15/18		2,000,000		2,047,500
SunGard Data Systems, Inc. 10.250%, 08/15/15 (a)		8,500,000		8,850,625
7.375%, 11/15/18		5,500,000		5,658,125
7.625%, 11/15/20 (a)		1,450,000		1,497,125
				23,779,000
Life Sciences Tools & Services—0.2%
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. 8.000%, 09/15/16 (a)		2,000,000		2,200,000
Life Technologies Corp. 6.000%, 03/01/20		1,250,000		1,399,584
				3,599,584
Machinery—3.3%
Actuant Corp. 6.875%, 06/15/17 (a)		2,000,000		2,070,000

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Machinery—(Continued)
Altra Holdings, Inc. 8.125%, 12/01/16 (a)		4,250,000	$	4,536,875
Amsted Industries, Inc. 8.125%, 03/15/18 (144A)		2,250,000		2,396,250
B-Corp. Merger Sub, Inc. 8.250%, 06/01/19 (144A)		875,000		826,875
Commercial Vehicle Group, Inc. 7.875%, 04/15/19 (144A)		6,000,000		5,805,000
Manitowoc Co., Inc. (The) 9.500%, 02/15/18 (a)		3,500,000		3,745,000
8.500%, 11/01/20 (a)		1,000,000		1,058,750
Mueller Water Products, Inc. 7.375%, 06/01/17 (a)		4,000,000		3,660,000
Navistar International Corp. 8.250%, 11/01/21 (a)		2,892,000		3,090,825
Oshkosh Corp. 8.500%, 03/01/20		1,000,000		1,035,000
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. 8.125%, 04/01/21 (a)		2,000,000		1,980,000
RBS Global, Inc./Rexnord Corp. 8.500%, 05/01/18 (a)		6,000,000		6,390,000
SPX Corp. 6.875%, 09/01/17 (144A) (a)		3,750,000		4,068,750
Thermadyne Holdings Corp. 9.000%, 12/15/17		1,920,000		1,996,800
Timken Co. (The) 6.000%, 09/15/14		2,650,000		2,869,632
Valmont Industries, Inc. 6.625%, 04/20/20		3,500,000		4,057,634
				49,587,391
Marine—0.1%
Commercial Barge Line Co. 12.500%, 07/15/17		2,075,000		2,246,188
Media—5.0%
Allbritton Communications Co. 8.000%, 05/15/18		1,500,000		1,496,250
AMC Networks, Inc. 7.750%, 07/15/21 (144A) (a)		2,000,000		2,185,000
Bresnan Broadband Holdings LLC 8.000%, 12/15/18 (144A)		4,000,000		4,180,000
CCH II LLC/CCH II Capital Corp. 13.500%, 11/30/16		1,067,512		1,238,314
Media—(Continued)
CCO Holdings LLC/CCO Holdings Capital Corp. 7.000%, 01/15/19		1,000,000	$	1,047,500
8.125%, 04/30/20		3,000,000		3,300,000
Cinemark U.S.A., Inc. 8.625%, 06/15/19		2,000,000		2,185,000
7.375%, 06/15/21 (a)		375,000		385,313
Clear Channel Communications, Inc. 9.000%, 03/01/21		2,200,000		1,864,500
Cumulus Media, Inc. 7.750%, 05/01/19 (144A) (a)		2,500,000		2,231,250
Discovery Communications LLC 5.625%, 08/15/19		1,520,000		1,732,228
DISH DBS Corp. 7.125%, 02/01/16		4,000,000		4,330,000
6.750%, 06/01/21		3,350,000		3,626,375
EH Holding Corp. 7.625%, 06/15/21 (144A) (a)		5,000,000		5,275,000
Gray Television, Inc. 10.500%, 06/29/15 (a)		3,325,000		3,158,750
Lamar Media Corp. 7.875%, 04/15/18 (a)		1,750,000		1,863,750
LIN Television Corp. 6.500%, 05/15/13 (a)		4,980,000		4,998,675
8.375%, 04/15/18		1,250,000		1,223,438
Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. 10.250%, 11/01/16 (144A)		3,100,000		3,131,000
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. 8.125%, 05/15/18 (144A)		3,750,000		3,796,875
Mediacom Broadband LLC 8.500%, 10/15/15 (a)		1,625,000		1,681,875
Mediacom LLC/Mediacom Capital Corp. 9.125%, 08/15/19 (a)		6,350,000		6,770,687
ProQuest LLC 9.000%, 10/15/18 (144A)		3,150,000		2,567,250
Salem Communications Corp. 9.625%, 12/15/16		844,000		894,640
Sinclair Television Group, Inc. 9.250%, 11/01/17 (144A)		1,000,000		1,095,000
Univision Communications, Inc. 8.500%, 05/15/21 (144A)		1,000,000		915,000
WMG Acquisition Corp. 9.500%, 06/15/16		6,000,000		6,540,000
11.500%, 10/01/18 (144A) (a)		1,625,000		1,620,937
				75,334,607

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Metals & Mining—2.3%
Allegheny Ludlum Corp. 6.950%, 12/15/25		3,700,000	$	4,198,989
American Rock Salt Co. LLC 8.250%, 05/01/18 (144A)		3,450,000		3,329,250
Atkore International, Inc. 9.875%, 01/01/18		4,000,000		3,850,000
Cliffs Natural Resources, Inc. 5.900%, 03/15/20		3,500,000		3,736,586
Constellation Enterprises LLC 10.625%, 02/01/16 (144A)		3,325,000		3,142,125
Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc. 8.375%, 04/01/17		6,000,000		6,381,756
JMC Steel Group 8.250%, 03/15/18 (144A) (a)		2,000,000		1,960,000
Noranda Aluminum Acquisition Corp. 4.659%, 05/15/15 (c) (e)		3,077,892		2,862,440
Old AII, Inc. 10.000%, 12/15/16 (d) (f)		4,330,000		0
Steel Dynamics, Inc. 7.625%, 03/15/20 (a)		1,500,000		1,590,000
SunCoke Energy, Inc. 7.625%, 08/01/19 (144A) (a)		2,300,000		2,311,500
Thompson Creek Metals Co., Inc. 7.375%, 06/01/18		1,050,000		939,750
				34,302,396
Multiline Retail—0.5%
JC Penney Corp., Inc. 7.950%, 04/01/17 (a)		1,250,000		1,368,750
Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc. 6.375%, 03/15/37		1,250,000		1,456,997
QVC, Inc. 7.125%, 04/15/17 (144A)		2,500,000		2,662,500
7.375%, 10/15/20 (144A)		2,500,000		2,681,250
				8,169,497
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—11.0%
Alon Refining Krotz Springs, Inc. 13.500%, 10/15/14		1,600,000		1,672,000
Arch Coal, Inc. 8.750%, 08/01/16		1,750,000		1,920,625
7.250%, 06/15/21 (144A) (a)		4,000,000		4,130,000
Berry Petroleum Co. 6.750%, 11/01/20 (a)		5,250,000		5,328,750
Chaparral Energy, Inc. 8.250%, 09/01/21 (a)		5,750,000		5,850,625
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—(Continued)
Chesapeake Energy Corp. 6.625%, 08/15/20		3,328,000	$	3,585,920
Cimarex Energy Co. 7.125%, 05/01/17 (a)		6,000,000		6,285,000
Colorado Interstate Gas Co. 6.800%, 11/15/15		2,107,000		2,429,224
Concho Resources, Inc. 8.625%, 10/01/17		1,250,000		1,371,875
7.000%, 01/15/21		5,175,000		5,582,531
CONSOL Energy, Inc. 8.250%, 04/01/20		3,500,000		3,885,000
6.375%, 03/01/21 (144A)		2,500,000		2,537,500
Continental Resources, Inc. 8.250%, 10/01/19		6,500,000		7,182,500
7.375%, 10/01/20		1,750,000		1,916,250
El Paso Corp. 7.000%, 06/15/17		6,550,000		7,209,271
6.500%, 09/15/20		3,200,000		3,475,181
Energy XXI Gulf Coast, Inc. 7.750%, 06/15/19 (a)		2,450,000		2,511,250
Forest Oil Corp. 8.500%, 02/15/14		1,500,000		1,642,500
7.250%, 06/15/19 (a)		6,500,000		6,662,500
IFM US Colonial Pipeline 2 LLC 6.450%, 05/01/21 (144A)		4,900,000		5,236,311
James River Coal Co. 7.875%, 04/01/19 (a)		5,000,000		3,800,000
Kerr-McGee Corp. 6.950%, 07/01/24		6,850,000		8,187,339
Kinder Morgan Finance Co. LLC 6.000%, 01/15/18 (144A)		3,000,000		3,067,500
Linn Energy LLC/Linn Energy Finance Corp. 7.750%, 02/01/21 (a)		4,000,000		4,180,000
MarkWest Energy Partners L.P./MarkWest Energy Finance Corp. 6.750%, 11/01/20 (a)		3,000,000		3,157,500
6.250%, 06/15/22		1,000,000		1,050,000
Nabors Industries, Inc. 6.150%, 02/15/18 (a)		4,000,000		4,474,108
Newfield Exploration Co. 7.125%, 05/15/18 (a)		3,000,000		3,217,500
Northwest Pipeline Corp. 6.050%, 06/15/18		900,000		1,031,525

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—(Continued)
Oasis Petroleum, Inc. 7.250%, 02/01/19		6,000,000	$	6,240,000
6.500%, 11/01/21 (a)		1,500,000		1,496,250
Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. 7.000%, 06/15/18		1,850,000		2,123,215
Patriot Coal Corp. 8.250%, 04/30/18 (a)		2,500,000		2,412,500
Peabody Energy Corp. 6.000%, 11/15/18 (144A)		1,500,000		1,537,500
6.250%, 11/15/21 (144A)		1,500,000		1,560,000
Penn Virginia Corp. 7.250%, 04/15/19 (a)		1,500,000		1,402,500
Penn Virginia Resource Partners L.P./Penn Virginia Resource Finance Corp. 8.250%, 04/15/18		4,000,000		4,040,000
Pioneer Natural Resources Co. 7.200%, 01/15/28		1,510,000		1,733,836
QEP Resources, Inc. 6.800%, 03/01/20		1,450,000		1,558,750
6.875%, 03/01/21		1,750,000		1,894,375
Quicksilver Resources, Inc. 8.250%, 08/01/15		3,000,000		3,120,000
Range Resources Corp. 7.250%, 05/01/18		1,500,000		1,612,500
8.000%, 05/15/19		1,975,000		2,212,000
SandRidge Energy, Inc. 7.500%, 03/15/21		2,000,000		1,995,000
SM Energy Co. 6.625%, 02/15/19 (144A)		4,500,000		4,702,500
6.500%, 11/15/21 (144A)		2,250,000		2,328,750
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. 7.500%, 04/01/17		3,500,000		4,184,597
Tesoro Corp. 9.750%, 06/01/19 (a)		1,000,000		1,127,500
W&T Offshore, Inc. 8.500%, 06/15/19 (144A) (a)		2,250,000		2,340,000
Whiting Petroleum Corp. 6.500%, 10/01/18		3,000,000		3,150,000
WPX Energy, Inc. 6.000%, 01/15/22 (144A)		1,300,000		1,337,375
				166,689,433
Paper & Forest Products—0.1%
Georgia-Pacific LLC 8.250%, 05/01/16 (144A)		2,000,000		2,222,626
Personal Products—0.4%
Elizabeth Arden, Inc. 7.375%, 03/15/21		5,500,000	$	5,747,500
Pharmaceuticals—1.0%
Aristotle Holding, Inc. 4.750%, 11/15/21 (144A)		2,440,000		2,529,807
Axcan Intermediate Holdings, Inc. 12.750%, 03/01/16		2,000,000		2,120,000
Mylan, Inc. 7.875%, 07/15/20 (144A) (a)		1,000,000		1,108,750
Phibro Animal Health Corp. 9.250%, 07/01/18 (144A)		5,100,000		4,449,750
STHI Holding Corp. 8.000%, 03/15/18 (144A)		3,500,000		3,613,750
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. 6.750%, 08/15/21 (144A) (a)		2,150,000		2,085,500
				15,907,557
Professional Services—0.1%
FTI Consulting, Inc. 6.750%, 10/01/20		1,000,000		1,037,500
Real Estate Investment Trusts—1.3%
Boston Properties L.P. 3.700%, 11/15/18		1,350,000		1,380,543
Developers Diversified Realty Corp. 7.875%, 09/01/20 (a)		2,625,000		2,933,004
DuPont Fabros Technology L.P. 8.500%, 12/15/17 (a)		2,000,000		2,150,000
Health Care REIT, Inc. 6.125%, 04/15/20		2,000,000		2,075,586
Host Marriott L.P. 6.375%, 03/15/15		1,450,000		1,482,625
Kilroy Realty Corp. 5.000%, 11/03/15		2,000,000		2,058,596
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. 6.750%, 10/15/22 (a)		1,675,000		1,691,750
Prologis, Inc. 5.625%, 11/15/16 (a)		1,129,000		1,193,302
6.875%, 03/15/20 (a)		4,000,000		4,448,348
Ventas, Inc. 3.125%, 11/30/15		900,000		880,905
				20,294,659

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Road & Rail—0.9%
Florida East Coast Railway Corp. 8.125%, 02/01/17		5,500,000	$	5,458,750
Hertz Corp. (The) 7.500%, 10/15/18		7,500,000		7,875,000
				13,333,750
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—0.7%
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 8.125%, 12/15/17 (a)		2,000,000		2,085,000
7.750%, 08/01/20 (a)		2,500,000		2,581,250
Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. 9.250%, 04/15/18 (144A)		1,000,000		1,073,750
10.750%, 08/01/20 (a)		2,204,000		2,308,690
KLA-Tencor Corp. 6.900%, 05/01/18		2,675,000		3,088,707
				11,137,397
Software—0.2%
Audatex North America, Inc. 6.750%, 06/15/18 (144A)		1,000,000		1,015,000
Open Solutions, Inc. 9.750%, 02/01/15 (144A)		3,500,000		2,261,875
				3,276,875
Specialty Retail—1.7%
Brookstone, Inc. 13.000%, 10/15/14 (144A)		3,089,000		2,482,784
Inergy L.P./Inergy Finance Corp. 6.875%, 08/01/21 (a)		3,664,000		3,700,640
J. Crew Group, Inc. 8.125%, 03/01/19 (a)		3,000,000		2,880,000
Limited Brands, Inc. 8.500%, 06/15/19		1,250,000		1,462,500
7.000%, 05/01/20		3,000,000		3,262,500
7.600%, 07/15/37		1,000,000		1,000,000
Michaels Stores, Inc. 13.000%, 11/01/16 (a) (b)		1,100,000		1,176,890
PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc. 9.250%, 12/01/18 (144A) (a)		2,500,000		2,693,750
Sally Holdings LLC/Sally Capital, Inc. 6.875%, 11/15/19 (144A) (a)		600,000		630,000
Toys “R” Us Property Co. I LLC 10.750%, 07/15/17		3,900,000		4,285,125
Toys “R” Us Property Co. II LLC 8.500%, 12/01/17		1,550,000		1,612,000
				25,186,189
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—0.9%
Brown Shoe Co., Inc. 7.125%, 05/15/19 (a)		3,500,000	$	3,333,750
Hanesbrands, Inc. 6.375%, 12/15/20 (a)		1,500,000		1,530,000
Levi Strauss & Co. 8.875%, 04/01/16 (a)		2,200,000		2,299,000
7.625%, 05/15/20 (a)		1,000,000		1,026,250
Perry Ellis International, Inc. 7.875%, 04/01/19		1,800,000		1,764,000
Polymer Group, Inc. 7.750%, 02/01/19 (144A)		3,500,000		3,640,000
				13,593,000
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance—0.2%
Provident Funding Associates 10.250%, 04/15/17 (144A)		2,500,000		2,343,750
Trading Companies & Distributors—0.4%
Interline Brands, Inc. 7.000%, 11/15/18		3,000,000		3,120,000
RSC Equipment Rental, Inc./RSC Holdings III LLC 8.250%, 02/01/21		2,375,000		2,416,563
				5,536,563
Wireless Telecommunication Services—1.6%
CC Holdings GS V LLC/Crown Castle GS III Corp. 7.750%, 05/01/17 (144A)		4,500,000		4,871,250
Cricket Communications, Inc. 7.750%, 10/15/20		975,000		855,562
MetroPCS Wireless, Inc. 7.875%, 09/01/18 (a)		3,500,000		3,565,625
6.625%, 11/15/20 (a)		5,000,000		4,675,000
SBA Telecommunications, Inc. 8.250%, 08/15/19		3,000,000		3,277,500
Sprint Nextel Corp. 8.375%, 08/15/17 (a)		3,500,000		3,154,375
Syniverse Holdings, Inc. 9.125%, 01/15/19 (a)		3,600,000		3,816,000
				24,215,312
Total Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities (Cost $1,126,108,376)				1,136,560,801

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—10.1%

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Auto Components—0.1%
International Automotive Components Group SL 9.125%, 06/01/18 (144A)		1,800,000	$	1,620,000
Capital Markets—0.3%
Macquarie Group, Ltd. 6.250%, 01/14/21 (144A) (a)		2,700,000		2,583,792
Vimpel-Communications Via VIP Finance Ireland, Ltd. 7.748%, 02/02/21 (144A) (a)		2,125,000		1,827,500
				4,411,292
Chemicals—0.4%
Ineos Finance plc 9.000%, 05/15/15 (144A) (a)		1,000,000		1,020,000
Ineos Group Holdings, Ltd. 8.500%, 02/15/16 (144A) (a)		5,000,000		4,000,000
LyondellBasell Industries N.V. 6.000%, 11/15/21 (144A)		1,000,000		1,042,500
				6,062,500
Computers & Peripherals—0.1%
Seagate HDD Cayman 6.875%, 05/01/20		1,500,000		1,548,750
Construction & Engineering—0.2%
Boart Longyear Management Pty, Ltd. 7.000%, 04/01/21 (144A)		3,000,000		3,060,000
Containers & Packaging—0.4%
Ardagh Packaging Finance plc 7.375%, 10/15/17 (144A)		3,000,000		3,045,000
9.125%, 10/15/20 (144A) (a)		2,000,000		1,990,000
Cascades, Inc. 7.750%, 12/15/17		850,000		845,750
				5,880,750
Diversified Financial Services—0.5%
Asciano Finance, Ltd. 4.625%, 09/23/20 (144A)		2,250,000		2,115,200
Goodman Funding Pty, Ltd. 6.375%, 11/12/20 (144A)		3,000,000		3,066,213
UPCB Finance V, Ltd. 7.250%, 11/15/21 (144A)		2,850,000		2,899,875
				8,081,288
Diversified Telecommunication Services—2.0%
Digicel Group, Ltd. 10.500%, 04/15/18 (144A)		3,000,000	$	3,045,000
Inmarsat Finance plc 7.375%, 12/01/17 (144A) (a)		1,500,000		1,575,000
Intelsat Jackson Holdings S.A. 7.500%, 04/01/21 (144A) (a)		4,500,000		4,561,875
Intelsat Luxembourg S.A. 11.250%, 02/04/17		6,500,000		6,305,000
Qtel International Finance, Ltd. 4.750%, 02/16/21 (144A)		1,350,000		1,366,875
Telefonica Emisiones SAU 7.045%, 06/20/36		2,000,000		1,955,724
Virgin Media Finance plc 9.500%, 08/15/16 (a)		1,750,000		1,973,125
8.375%, 10/15/19		2,000,000		2,205,000
Virgin Media Secured Finance plc 5.250%, 01/15/21		550,000		583,764
Wind Acquisition Finance S.A. 11.750%, 07/15/17 (144A) (a)		7,050,000		6,345,000
7.250%, 02/15/18 (144A)		900,000		821,250
				30,737,613
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—0.1%
Sensata Technologies B.V. 6.500%, 05/15/19 (144A) (a)		1,500,000		1,488,750
Energy Equipment & Services—0.1%
Precision Drilling Corp. 6.500%, 12/15/21 (144A)		650,000		666,250
Transocean, Inc. 6.375%, 12/15/21		1,000,000		1,064,851
				1,731,101
Food Products—0.3%
Viterra, Inc. 5.950%, 08/01/20 (144A)		4,250,000		4,350,563
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—0.8%
Great Canadian Gaming Corp. 7.250%, 02/15/15 (144A) (a)		4,600,000		4,669,000
MCE Finance, Ltd. 10.250%, 05/15/18 (a)		2,500,000		2,706,250
MU Finance plc 8.375%, 02/01/17 (144A)		3,750,000		3,965,625
NCL Corp., Ltd. 9.500%, 11/15/18		1,000,000		1,047,500
				12,388,375

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Insurance—0.1%
AXA S.A. 6.379%, 12/31/49 (144A) (e)		2,325,000	$	1,534,500
Media—0.1%
Ono Finance II plc 10.875%, 07/15/19 (144A) (a)		1,750,000		1,566,250
Metals & Mining—1.6%
Algoma Acquisition Corp. 9.875%, 06/15/15 (144A)		4,000,000		3,460,000
Essar Steel Algoma, Inc. 9.375%, 03/15/15 (144A)		1,400,000		1,365,000
FMG Resources (August 2006) Pty, Ltd. 7.000%, 11/01/15 (144A)		3,250,000		3,298,750
6.875%, 02/01/18 (144A)		750,000		721,875
8.250%, 11/01/19 (144A) (a)		1,650,000		1,687,125
Gold Fields Orogen Holding BVI, Ltd. 4.875%, 10/07/20 (144A)		3,400,000		3,007,174
Mirabela Nickel, Ltd. 8.750%, 04/15/18 (144A) (a)		4,000,000		3,610,000
Novelis, Inc. 8.750%, 12/15/20 (a)		1,500,000		1,616,250
Quadra FNX Mining, Ltd. 7.750%, 06/15/19 (144A)		4,150,000		4,715,438
				23,481,612
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—1.5%
Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp. 8.125%, 12/01/19 (144A)		2,500,000		2,593,750
Lukoil International Finance B.V. 6.656%, 06/07/22 (144A)		4,750,000		4,761,875
MEG Energy Corp. 6.500%, 03/15/21 (144A)		3,675,000		3,776,062
OGX Petroleo e Gas Participacoes S.A. 8.500%, 06/01/18 (144A)		8,325,000		8,241,750
Pan American Energy LLC 7.875%, 05/07/21 (144A)		3,000,000		3,045,000
				22,418,437
Paper & Forest Products—0.1%
Millar Western Forest Products, Ltd. 8.500%, 04/01/21 (144A)		2,000,000		1,530,000
Pharmaceuticals—0.7%
Novartis Securities Investment, Ltd. 5.125%, 02/10/19		2,450,000		2,883,736
Pharmaceuticals—(Continued)
Warner Chilcott Co. LLC/Warner Chilcott Finance LLC 7.750%, 09/15/18		7,775,000	$	7,979,093
				10,862,829
Professional Services—0.1%
Nielsen Holdings N.V. 6.250%, 02/01/13		1,140,000		661,913
Road & Rail—0.1%
Kansas City Southern de Mexico S.A. de C.V. 6.125%, 06/15/21 (a)		1,875,000		1,945,313
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—0.1%
NXP B.V./NXP Funding LLC 9.750%, 08/01/18 (144A)		1,825,000		1,998,375
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance—0.1%
Odebrecht Finance, Ltd. 6.000%, 04/05/23 (144A)		1,300,000		1,309,750
Wireless Telecommunication Services—0.3%
Telemar Norte Leste S.A. 5.500%, 10/23/20 (144A)		2,095,000		2,074,050
Telemovil Finance Co., Ltd. 8.000%, 10/01/17 (144A) (a)		2,700,000		2,794,500
				4,868,550
Total Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities (Cost $155,472,415)				153,538,511
Convertible Bonds—8.1%
Automobiles—0.2%
Ford Motor Co. 4.250%, 11/15/16		1,500,000		2,158,125
Beverages—0.3%
Central European Distribution Corp. 3.000%, 03/15/13 (a)		2,175,000		1,750,875
Molson Coors Brewing Co. 2.500%, 07/30/13		3,000,000		3,191,250
				4,942,125
Biotechnology—1.0%
BioMarin Pharmaceutical, Inc. 1.875%, 04/23/17		3,250,000		5,797,187

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Convertible Bonds—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Biotechnology—(Continued)
Decode Genetics, Inc. 3.500%, 04/15/11 (d)		1,666,000	$	10,413
Gilead Sciences, Inc. 0.625%, 05/01/13		3,700,000		4,296,625
Human Genome Sciences, Inc. 3.000%, 11/15/18		2,125,000		1,907,187
Incyte Corp., Ltd. 4.750%, 10/01/15		800,000		1,504,000
Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 3.350%, 10/01/15		1,300,000		1,369,875
				14,885,287
Communications Equipment—0.1%
Ciena Corp. 4.000%, 03/15/15 (144A)		1,500,000		1,481,250
Computers & Peripherals—0.7%
EMC Corp. Series B 1.750%, 12/01/13		3,800,000		5,472,000
NetApp, Inc. 1.750%, 06/01/13		3,200,000		4,056,000
SanDisk Corp. 1.000%, 05/15/13		475,000		464,906
1.500%, 08/15/17		1,000,000		1,182,500
				11,175,406
Electrical Equipment—0.6%
A123 Systems, Inc. 3.750%, 04/15/16		3,125,000		1,070,312
Roper Industries, Inc. 0.793%, 01/15/34 (g)		7,500,000		8,175,000
				9,245,312
Food Products—0.2%
Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. 0.875%, 02/15/14		,000,000		3,030,000
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—0.2%
NuVasive, Inc. 2.750%, 07/01/17		3,725,000		2,733,219
Health Care Providers & Services—0.1%
Five Star Quality Care, Inc. 3.750%, 10/15/26		1,500,000		1,389,375
Industrial Conglomerates—0.2%
Danaher Corp. 0.657%, 01/22/21 (g)		2,500,000		3,425,000
Internet & Catalog Retail—0.1%
Liberty Media Corp. 3.250%, 03/15/31		2,000,000	$	1,607,500
Internet Software & Services—0.2%
Digital River, Inc. 2.000%, 11/01/30 (144A)		3,175,000		2,615,406
IT Services—0.3%
Alliance Data Systems Corp. 1.750%, 08/01/13		1,750,000		2,408,438
CACI International, Inc. 2.125%, 05/01/14 (a)		1,500,000		1,768,125
				4,176,563
Machinery—0.5%
Actuant Corp. 2.000%, 11/15/23		1,700,000		2,057,000
Altra Holdings, Inc. 2.750%, 03/01/31 (144A)		2,300,000		2,179,250
Greenbrier Cos., Inc. 3.500%, 04/01/18 (144A)		975,000		949,406
Meritor, Inc. 4.625%/0.000%, 03/01/26 (h)		2,225,000		1,652,063
				6,837,719
Media—0.4%
Interpublic Group of Cos., Inc. (The) 4.250%, 03/15/23		2,500,000		2,540,625
Omnicom Group, Inc. 0.000%, 07/01/38 (a)(g)		3,000,000		3,180,000
				5,720,625
Metals & Mining—0.4%
Molycorp, Inc. 3.250%, 06/15/16 (144A)		1,130,000		966,150
Newmont Mining Corp. Series A 1.250%, 07/15/14		3,900,000		5,440,500
				6,406,650
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—0.0%
Alpha Appalachia Holdings, Inc. 3.250%, 08/01/15		620,000		575,825
Pharmaceuticals—0.6%
Alza Corp. 0.657%, 07/28/20 (g)		5,000,000		4,656,250

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Convertible Bonds—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Pharmaceuticals—(Continued)
Teva Pharmaceutical Finance Co., LLC Series C 0.250%, 02/01/26 (a)		3,750,000	$	3,895,312
				8,551,562
Professional Services—0.2%
FTI Consulting, Inc. 3.750%, 07/15/12		2,000,000		2,765,000
Real Estate Investment Trusts—0.3%
Host Hotels & Resorts L.P. 2.500%, 10/15/29 (144A)		1,750,000		2,176,563
Prologis, Inc. 3.250%, 03/15/15		2,700,000		2,797,875
				4,974,438
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—0.2%
Xilinx, Inc. 2.625%, 06/15/17 (a)		2,800,000		3,570,000
Software—0.7%
Concur Technologies, Inc. 2.500%, 04/15/15 (144A)		3,600,000		4,324,500
Nuance Communications, Inc. 2.750%, 08/15/27		1,560,000		2,258,100
2.750%, 11/01/31 (144A)		1,050,000		1,132,687
Symantec Corp. 1.000%, 06/15/13 (a)		3,000,000		3,356,250
				11,071,537
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—0.2%
Iconix Brand Group, Inc. 2.500%, 06/01/16 (144A)		3,750,000		3,567,188
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance—0.0%
Radian Group, Inc. 3.000%, 11/15/17		1,000,000		436,250
Wireless Telecommunication Services—0.4%
InterDigital, Inc. 2.500%, 03/15/16 (144A)		450,000		472,500
SBA Communications Corp. 4.000%, 10/01/14		4,000,000		6,100,000
				6,572,500
Total Convertible Bonds (Cost $124,981,627)				123,913,862

Convertible Preferred Stocks—1.9%

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Auto Components—0.1%
Cooper-Standard Holding, Inc. 7.000%, 12/31/49 (c)		5,543	$	870,251
Automobiles—0.1%
General Motors Co. Series B 4.750%, 12/01/13		30,000		1,038,750
Commercial Banks—0.3%
Fifth Third Bancorp, Series G 8.500%, 12/31/49 (a)		30,000		4,262,400
Diversified Financial Services—0.4%
AMG Capital Trust I 5.100%, 04/15/36		40,000		1,775,000
Citigroup, Inc. 7.500%, 12/15/12		50,000		4,062,500
				5,837,500
Diversified Telecommunication Services—0.0%
Lucent Technologies Capital Trust I 7.750%, 03/15/17		1,000		614,000
Electric Utilities—0.2%
PPL Corp. 8.750%, 05/01/14		40,000		2,220,000
PPL Corp. 9.500%, 07/01/13 (a)		27,200		1,509,600
				3,729,600
Insurance—0.1%
Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (The) Series F 7.250%, 04/01/13 (a)		89,600		1,682,688
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—0.7%
Apache Corp. Series D 6.000%, 08/01/13 (a)		150,000		8,142,000
Williams Cos., Inc. (The) 5.500%, 06/01/33		15,000		2,277,188
				10,419,188
Total Convertible Preferred Stocks (Cost $29,263,940)				28,454,377

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—1.2%

Security Description	Shares		Value
Auto Components—0.4%
Cooper-Standard Holding, Inc.* (a)		188,233	$	6,258,747
Chemicals—0.2%
LyondellBasell Industries N.V.—Class A (a)		105,000		3,411,450
Metals & Mining—0.3%
Barrick Gold Corp.		100,000		4,525,000
Paper & Forest Products—0.0%
PT Indah Kiat Pulp and Paper Corp.*		1,867,500		252,871
Pharmaceuticals—0.2%
Mylan, Inc.*		80,000		1,716,800
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. (ADR)		7,020		283,327
				2,000,127
Software—0.1%
Informatica Corp.* (a)		35,000		1,292,550
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance—0.0%
Federal National Mortgage Association* (a)		227,275		45,728
Total Common Stocks (Cost $17,258,668)				17,786,473
Preferred Stocks—1.1%
Commercial Banks—0.6%
Fifth Third Capital Trust IV (e)		4,200,000		4,137,000
U.S. Bancorp., Series A (a) (e)		2,305		1,654,990
Wachovia Capital Trust III (e)		3,143,000		2,644,049
				8,436,039
Diversified Financial Services—0.5%
Capital One Capital VI (a)		5,750,000		5,996,623
JPMorgan Chase & Co., Series 1 (e)		1,650,000		1,762,665
				7,759,288
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance—0.0%
Federal National Mortgage Association, Series S * (e)		136,300		188,094
Total Preferred Stocks (Cost $17,598,728)				16,383,421

Municipals—0.3%

Security Description	Shares/Par Amount($)†		Value
Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, Convention Center Authority, Build America Bonds 6.731%, 07/01/43		3,350,000	$	3,942,046
Total Municipals (Cost $3,403,215)				3,942,046
Warrants—0.1%
Auto Components—0.0%
Cooper-Standard Holding, Inc., expires 11/27/17*		20,875		276,594
Media—0.1%
Charter Communications, Inc., expires 11/30/14* (a)		19,873		345,790
Ion Media Second Lien Warrants, expires 12/16/18*		395		98,750
Ion Media Unsecured Debt Warrant Restricted, expires 12/16/18*		390		58,500
				503,040
Total Warrants (Cost $2,463,611)				779,634
Short-Term Investments—21.3%
Mutual Funds—20.4%
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (i)		310,421,039		310,421,039
Repurchase Agreement—0.9%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $13,594,015 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $13,430,000 U.S. Treasury Note at 1.500% due 12/31/13 with a value of $13,866,475.	$	13,594,000		13,594,000
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $324,015,039)				324,015,039
Total Investments—118.8% (Cost $1,800,565,619#)				1,805,374,164
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(18.8)%				(285,072,455	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	1,520,301,709

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

† Par amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $1,798,460,979. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $79,892,061 and $(72,978,876), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $6,913,185 for federal income tax purposes.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities loaned was $298,928,481 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $310,421,039. The cash collateral is invested in a money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian.

(b) Security is a “step-up” bond where coupon increases or steps up at a predetermined date. Rates shown are current coupon and next coupon rate when security steps up.

(c) Payment-in-kind security for which part of the income earned may be paid as additional principal.

(d) Security is in default and/or issuer is in bankruptcy.

(e) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2011. Maturity date shown for callable securities reflects the earliest possible call date.

(f) Security was valued in good faith under procedures approved by the Board of Trustees.

(g) Zero coupon bond—Interest rate represents current yield to maturity.

(h) Security is a “step-down” bond where the coupon decreases or steps down at a predetermined date. Rates shown are current coupon and next coupon rate when a security steps down.

(i) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities lending transactions.

(144A)— Securities exempt from registration under Rule 144A of the Securities Act of 1933. These securities may be resold in transactions exempt from registration, normally to qualified institutional buyers. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of 144A securities was $411,646,566, which is 27.1% of net assets.

(ADR)— An American Depositary Receipt is a certificate issued by a custodian bank representing the right to receive securities of the foreign issuer described. Trading on exchanges not located in the United States or Canada significantly influences the value of ADRs.

(MTN)— Medium-Term Note

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Total Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities*	$	—	$	1,136,560,801	$	—	$	1,136,560,801
Total Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities*		—		153,538,511		—		153,538,511
Total Convertible Bonds*		—		123,913,862		—		123,913,862
Convertible Preferred Stocks
Auto Components		—		870,251		—		870,251
Automobiles		1,038,750		—		—		1,038,750
Commercial Banks		4,262,400		—		—		4,262,400
Diversified Financial Services		5,837,500		—		—		5,837,500
Diversified Telecommunication Services		614,000		—		—		614,000
Electric Utilities		3,729,600		—		—		3,729,600
Insurance		1,682,688		—		—		1,682,688
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels		10,419,188		—		—		10,419,188
Total Convertible Preferred Stocks		27,584,126		870,251		—		28,454,377
Common Stocks
Auto Components		6,258,747		—		—		6,258,747
Chemicals		3,411,450		—		—		3,411,450
Metals & Mining		4,525,000		—		—		4,525,000
Paper & Forest Products		—		252,871		—		252,871
Pharmaceuticals		2,000,127		—		—		2,000,127
Software		1,292,550		—		—		1,292,550
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance		45,728		—		—		45,728
Total Common Stocks		17,533,602		252,871		—		17,786,473
Preferred Stocks
Commercial Banks		1,654,990		6,781,049		—		8,436,039
Diversified Financial Services		—		7,759,288		—		7,759,288
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance		188,094		—		—		188,094
Total Preferred Stocks		1,843,084		14,540,337		—		16,383,421
Municipals		—		3,942,046		—		3,942,046
Warrants
Auto Components		—		276,594		—		276,594
Media		345,790		157,250		—		503,040
Total Warrants		345,790		433,844		—		779,634

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY—(Continued)

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Short-Term Investments
Mutual Funds	$	310,421,039	$	—	$	—	$	310,421,039
Repurchase Agreement		—		13,594,000		—		13,594,000
Total Short-Term Investments		310,421,039		13,594,000		—		324,015,039
Total Investments	$	357,727,641	$	1,447,646,523	$	—	$	1,805,374,164

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)(b)	$	1,791,780,164
Repurchase Agreement		13,594,000
Cash		248,908
Receivable for shares sold		308,631
Dividends receivable		120,797
Interest receivable		26,500,032
Total assets		1,832,552,532
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		234,751
Shares redeemed		566,523
Collateral for securities loaned		310,421,039
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		653,210
Distribution and service fees - Class B		164,847
Distribution and service fees - Class E		3,090
Administration fees		6,485
Custodian and accounting fees		12,913
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		162,898
Total liabilities		312,250,823
Net Assets	$	1,520,301,709
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	1,428,631,553
Accumulated net realized loss		(23,596,587	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments and futures contracts		4,808,545
Undistributed net investment income		110,458,198
Net Assets	$	1,520,301,709
Net Assets
Class A	$	715,638,165
Class B		780,401,896
Class E		24,261,648
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		55,926,829
Class B		61,574,004
Class E		1,909,340
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	12.80
Class B		12.67
Class E		12.71

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreement, was $1,786,971,619.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $298,928,481.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	3,038,672
Interest (b)		113,735,146
Total investment income		116,773,818
Expenses
Management fees		8,669,889
Administration fees		86,250
Custodian and accounting fees		174,837
Distribution and service fees - Class B		2,027,225
Distribution and service fees - Class E		41,009
Audit and tax services		55,457
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		36,919
Shareholder reporting		183,101
Insurance		9,093
Miscellaneous		23,304
Total expenses		11,340,370
Net investment income		105,433,448
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments, Futures Contracts and Foreign Currency Transactions
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments		76,688,191
Futures contracts		(304,999	)
Foreign currency transactions		23,568
Net realized gain on investments, futures contracts and foreign currency transactions		76,406,760
Net change in unrealized depreciation from:
Investments		(87,309,267	)
Futures contracts		(716,581	)
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments and futures contracts		(88,025,848	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments, futures contracts and foreign currency transactions		(11,619,088	)
Net Increase in Net Assets from Operations	$	93,814,360

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $87,786.

(b) Includes net income on securities loaned of $1,189,687.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	105,433,448		$	117,167,585
Net realized gain on investments, futures contracts and foreign currency transactions		76,406,760			36,428,690
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments and futures contracts		(88,025,848	)		76,526,365
Net increase in net assets resulting from operations		93,814,360			230,122,640
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(73,366,357	)		(67,467,681	)
Class B		(48,276,914	)		(47,579,027	)
Class E		(1,697,715	)		(2,023,797	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(123,340,986	)		(117,070,505	)
Net increase (decrease) in net assets from capital share transactions		(448,394,093	)		105,917,868
Net Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets		(477,920,719	)		218,970,003
Net assets at beginning of period		1,998,222,428			1,779,252,425
Net assets at end of period	$	1,520,301,709		$	1,998,222,428
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	110,458,198		$	121,555,120

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		13,222,953		$	171,582,020			14,513,188		$	179,662,863
Reinvestments		5,736,228			73,366,357			5,575,841			67,467,681
Redemptions		(52,643,742	)		(676,189,077	)		(12,734,860	)		(156,462,867	)
Net increase (decrease)		(33,684,561	)	$	(431,240,700	)		7,354,169		$	90,667,677
Class B
Sales		6,638,999		$	84,853,754			7,319,507		$	90,352,722
Reinvestments		3,804,327			48,276,914			3,961,618			47,579,027
Redemptions		(11,438,917	)		(144,902,938	)		(9,671,822	)		(118,319,919	)
Net increase (decrease)		(995,591	)	$	(11,772,270	)		1,609,303		$	19,611,830
Class E
Sales		232,926		$	3,025,191			397,316		$	4,944,660
Reinvestments		133,573			1,697,715			168,229			2,023,797
Redemptions		(787,118	)		(10,104,029	)		(924,389	)		(11,330,096	)
Net decrease		(420,619	)	$	(5,381,123	)		(358,844	)	$	(4,361,639	)
Increase (decrease) derived from capital shares transactions				$	(448,394,093	)				$	105,917,868

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	12.98		$	12.24		$	9.72		$	12.63		$	12.51
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.80			0.79			0.78			0.78			0.77
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.17	)		0.76			2.61			(3.00	)		0.07
Total from investment operations		0.63			1.55			3.39			(2.22	)		0.84
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.81	)		(0.81	)		(0.87	)		(0.51	)		(0.70	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.18	)		(0.02	)
Total distributions		(0.81	)		(0.81	)		(0.87	)		(0.69	)		(0.72	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	12.80		$	12.98		$	12.24		$	9.72		$	12.63
Total Return (%)		4.83			13.18			37.12			(18.40	)		6.85
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.54			0.53			0.55			0.53			0.54
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.54			0.53			0.55			0.53			0.53
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		6.18			6.40			7.21			6.84			6.11
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		35.9			42.0			39.4			24.8			36.0
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	715.6		$	1,163.2		$	1,006.5		$	933.7		$	1,228.9

	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	12.87		$	12.14		$	9.65		$	12.54		$	12.43
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.76			0.76			0.74			0.75			0.73
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.19	)		0.76			2.59			(2.97	)		0.07
Total from investment operations		0.57			1.52			3.33			(2.22	)		0.80
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.77	)		(0.79	)		(0.84	)		(0.49	)		(0.67	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.18	)		(0.02	)
Total distributions		(0.77	)		(0.79	)		(0.84	)		(0.67	)		(0.69	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	12.67		$	12.87		$	12.14		$	9.65		$	12.54
Total Return (%)		4.46			12.97			36.77			(18.60	)		6.55
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.79			0.78			0.80			0.78			0.78
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.79			0.78			0.80			0.78			0.78
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		5.98			6.16			6.93			6.57			5.85
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		35.9			42.0			39.4			24.8			36.0
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	780.4		$	805.0		$	740.0		$	533.6		$	800.6

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

25

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	12.89		$	12.16		$	9.67		$	12.56		$	12.44
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.78			0.77			0.76			0.76			0.74
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.18	)		0.76			2.58			(2.97	)		0.08
Total from investment operations		0.60			1.53			3.34			(2.21	)		0.82
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.78	)		(0.80	)		(0.85	)		(0.50	)		(0.68	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.18	)		(0.02	)
Total distributions		(0.78	)		(0.80	)		(0.85	)		(0.68	)		(0.70	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	12.71		$	12.89		$	12.16		$	9.67		$	12.56
Total Return (%)		4.69			13.03			36.87			(18.52	)		6.73
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.69			0.68			0.70			0.68			0.68
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.69			0.68			0.70			0.68			0.68
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		6.07			6.26			7.03			6.66			5.95
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		35.9			42.0			39.4			24.8			36.0
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	24.3		$	30.0		$	32.7		$	23.8		$	37.8

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

26

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A, B and E Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matric pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

27

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to convertible preferred stocks, foreign currency transactions, defaulted bonds transactions, premium amortization adjustments, contingent payment debt instruments, ASC-860 (Lehman Brothers counterparty gain/loss) adjustment, deferred trustees’ compensation, capital loss carryforwards and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Securities Lending - The Portfolio may lend its portfolio securities to certain qualified brokers who borrow securities in order to complete certain securities transactions. By lending its portfolio securities, the Portfolio attempts to increase its net investment income through the receipt of income on the loaned securities. Any gain or loss in the market price of the loaned securities that might occur and any interest earned or dividends declared during the term of the loan would accrue to the account of the Portfolio.

The Trust has entered into a securities lending arrangement with the custodian, State Street Bank and Trust Company (the “custodian”). Under this arrangement, the custodian is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash

28

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

or securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral at least equal to 102% of the market value of the loaned securities (105% for foreign equity securities), at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities must be maintained for the duration of the loan. Cash collateral is generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The Navigator Portfolio is a registered money market fund which invests in a variety of high quality U.S. dollar-denominated instruments. If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower shall be required to deliver, by the close of business on the following business day, an additional amount of collateral so that the total amount of posted collateral equals at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of net income (income after the deduction of expenses and fees of the Navigator Portfolio) on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the custodian and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by U.S. Treasuries, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the custodian. The risks associated with lending portfolio securities include, but are not limited to, possible delays in receiving additional collateral or in the recovery of the loaned securities, possible loss of rights in the collateral should the borrower fail financially, as well as risk of loss in the value of the collateral or the value of the investments made with the collateral. Net interest income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2011 is disclosed in the footnotes to the Statement of Operations. Any outstanding loans by the Portfolio at December 31, 2011 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

High Yield Debt Securities - The Portfolio may invest in high yield debt securities, or “junk bonds,” which are securities that are rated below “investment grade” or, if not rated, are of equivalent quality. A portfolio with high yield debt securities generally will be exposed to greater market risk and credit risk than a portfolio that invests only in investment grade debt securities because issuers of high yield debt securities are less secure financially, are more likely to default on their obligations, and their securities are more sensitive to interest rate changes and downturns in the economy. In addition, the secondary market for lower-rated debt securities may not be as liquid as that for more highly rated debt securities. As a result, the Portfolio’s Subadviser may find it more difficult to value lower-rated debt securities or sell them and may have to sell them at prices significantly lower than the values assigned to them by the Portfolio.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with Lord, Abbett & Co. LLC (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year  ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$8,669,889		0.60	%	First $250 Million
		0.55	%	$250 Million to $500 Million
		0.50	%	$500 Million to $1 Billion
		0.45	%	Over $1 Billion

29

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Distribution Agreements and Plans - The Trust has distribution agreements with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A, Class B and Class E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B and Class E distribution plans provide that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% and 0.25%, respectively, of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B and Class E Shares. However, under the Class B and Class E distribution agreements, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B and Class E distribution plans are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% and 0.15% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares, respectively. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B and Class E distribution plans and distribution agreements, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B and Class E Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases				Sales
U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$	—	$	604,149,459	$	—	$	1,032,281,302

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments

Futures Contracts - The Portfolio may buy and sell futures contracts (on recognized exchanges) as a hedge, to maintain investment exposure to a target asset class or to enhance return. The Portfolio may be subject to fluctuations in equity prices, interest rates, commodity prices and foreign currency exchange rates in the normal course of pursuing its investment objective. Futures contracts are standardized agreements to buy or sell a security, or deliver a final cash settlement price in connection with an index, interest rate, currency, or other asset. The Portfolio must deposit an amount (“initial margin”) equal to a certain percentage of the face value of the futures contract. The initial margin may be in the form of cash or securities which is returned when the Portfolio’s obligations under the contract have been satisfied. If cash is deposited as the initial margin, it is shown as “restricted cash” on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Futures contracts are marked-to-market daily and subsequent payments (“variation margin”) are made or received by the Portfolio depending on the daily fluctuations in the value of the futures contracts. These amounts are reflected as receivables or payables on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Risks of entering into futures contracts (and related options) include the possibility that the market for these instruments may be illiquid and that a change in the value of the contract or option may not correlate perfectly with changes in the value of the underlying instrument. Futures contracts are exchange traded and the exchange’s clearinghouse, as counterparty to all exchange traded futures, guarantees the futures contracts against default.

Transactions in derivative instruments, grouped by risk exposure, during the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Statement of Operations Location - Net Realized Gain (Loss)	Interest Rate Risk
Future contracts	$	(304,999	)

30

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments - continued

Statement of Operations Location - Net Change in Unrealized Gain
(Loss)	Interest Rate Risk
Future contracts	$	(716,581	)

For the year ended December 31, 2011, the average amount or number per contract outstanding for each derivative type was as follows:

Derivative Description	Average Notional or Face Amount(a)
Futures contracts short	$	(8,266,667	)

(a) Averages are based on activity levels during 2011.

6. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

7. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income				Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2011		2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$	123,340,986	$	117,070,505	$	—	$	—	$	123,340,986	$	117,070,505

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards			Total
$111,846,070	$	—	$	6,913,184	$	(27,064,031	)	$	91,695,223

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses.

31

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

8. Income Tax Information - continued

As of December 31, 2011, the post-enactment accumulated capital losses were $0 and the pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards expiring on December 31, 2017 were $27,064,031.

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-11 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

32

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 28, 2012

33

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

34

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

35

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

36

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

37

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the one-, three- and five- year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board further considered that the Portfolio outperformed its benchmark, the Merrill Lynch U.S. High Yield Master II Constrained Index, for the one- year period ended September 30, 2011, and underperformed its benchmark for the three- and five-year periods ended September 30, 2011, and outperformed its blended benchmark, consisting of 60% Merrill Lynch High Yield Master II Constrained Index, 20% Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index and 20% Merrill Lynch All Convertible Index, for the one- and five- year periods ended September 30, 2011, and underperformed its blended benchmark for the three- year period ended September 30, 2011. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance, including relative to its benchmark. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s performance was satisfactory.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing

38

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the Expense Group median, the Expense Universe median and the Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were below the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the

39

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

With respect to the Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee and sub-advisory fee each contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s management fees are below the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

40

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Managed by Lord, Abbett & Co. LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A and B shares of the Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio returned -3.46% and -3.70%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Russell Midcap Value Index¹, returned -1.38%.

Market Environment/Conditions

The fiscal year was a challenging period for our strategy, as investors focused more on geopolitical and macroeconomic factors than on the fundamentals of individual companies. The market endured several disruptive events during the year including a devastating earthquake in Japan, flooding in Thailand, a downgrade of United States (“U.S.”) government bonds, political turmoil in Northern Africa and the Middle East and a European sovereign debt crisis. Despite these events, the economy in the United States has been resilient, with continued economic growth and improving employment trends late in the year.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

For the twelve month period ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio underperformed the Russell Midcap^® Value Index¹.

Our underweight positioning in the defensive Utilities sector detracted from relative performance, as the sector was the best performing group within the index during the year. Our relative performance was negatively impacted by stock selection and an underweight position within the Consumer Staples sector. Shares of agribusiness and food company Bunge, Ltd. declined over the period as a result of margin pressure. Stock selection within the Financials sector also detracted from performance, although our underweight positioning within this underperforming sector contributed to relative performance. Shares of Lazard, Ltd., an investment management and advisory firm, declined during the year as investors became concerned about the firm’s European exposure. Shares of Comerica, Inc., a bank with a substantial commercial lending operation, declined during the third quarter on concerns that a sluggish economy could impact loan growth.

Stock selection within the Energy sector contributed to relative performance, as higher oil prices resulted in increased exploration and production activity. Shares of El Paso Corp., which owns and operates the largest natural gas pipeline system in North America, rose after the firm agreed to be acquired by Kinder Morgan. EQT Corp., a producer and distributor of natural gas in the U.S., appreciated as the firm’s production growth was strong in 2011. The Portfolio also benefitted from stock selection and an overweight position in the Health Care sector. Our position in medical technology company Kinetic Concepts, Inc. contributed to performance as the firm announced that it would be acquired by a group of private equity investors. Shares of Humana Inc., a managed care organization with a focus on government customers, benefitted from increased membership in the firm’s Medicare Advantage program and low health care utilization trends.

Overall, we continue to seek investments in what we believe to be high-quality companies that can capitalize on their financial strength and strong competitive position in a slow economic environment. Materials is now the Portfolio’s largest overweight sector, as we anticipate reasonable global demand, particularly benefiting chemical companies with advantaged raw material cost positions. Energy remains a large overweight, where natural gas producers and services companies should continue to benefit from the development of U.S. nonconventional resources. Health Care also is a large overweight, with an emphasis on companies that likely would benefit from the expected increase in the usage of generic drugs, including generic drug manufacturers and distributors. We decreased exposure to facilities-based service providers, as we expect reimbursement challenges to continue. Information Technology is now a slight overweight, as we expect growth in end demand for electronic equipment and office electronics. The Financials and Utilities sectors remain the largest underweights, and we have minimal representation in the Consumer Staples industry, as we continue to find better investment opportunities elsewhere.

Robert P. Fetch, Partner & Director of Domestic Equity Portfolio Management

Lord, Abbett & Co. LLC

Jeff Diamond, Portfolio Manager

Lord, Abbett & Co. LLC

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Managed by Lord, Abbett & Co. LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

* This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Interpublic Group of Cos., Inc. (The)		2.6
Mylan, Inc.		2.3
EQT Corp.		2.2
Bunge, Ltd.		2.1
Omnicom Group, Inc.		2.0
Fiserv, Inc.		1.7
Macy’s, Inc.		1.6
Lazard, Ltd. - Class A		1.6
Republic Services, Inc.		1.5
Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co.		1.5

Top Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Industrials		19.9
Financials		16.5
Non-Cyclical		14.9
Energy		12.4
Basic Materials		9.8
Communications		7.7
Cyclical		6.3
Technology		5.7
Cash & Cash Equivalents		3.5
Utilities		3.3

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio managed by

Lord, Abbett & Co. LLC vs. Russell Midcap Value Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 year		5 Year		10 Year
Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio—Class A		-3.46%		-0.94%		5.20%
Class B		-3.70%		-1.18%		4.93%
Russell Midcap Value Index1		-1.38%		0.04%		7.67%

The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other class of shares because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹The Russell Midcap Value Index is an unmanaged measure of performance of those Russell Midcap companies (the 800 smallest companies in the Russell 1000 Index) with lower price-to-book ratios and higher forecasted growth values.

²“Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gains distributions.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A
Actual		0.74%	$	1,000.00	$	891.60	$	3.53
Hypothetical*		0.74%		1,000.00		1,021.47		3.77
Class B
Actual		0.99%	$	1,000.00	$	890.80	$	4.72
Hypothetical*		0.99%		1,000.00		1,020.21		5.04

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—97.1% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—1.4%
Rockwell Collins, Inc.		96,400	$	5,337,668
Auto Components—0.5%
Lear Corp.		45,500		1,810,900
Beverages—1.7%
Beam, Inc.		86,100		4,410,903
Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc.		59,100		2,333,268
				6,744,171
Building Products—0.4%
Fortune Brands Home & Security, Inc.*		87,300		1,486,719
Capital Markets—3.2%
Affiliated Managers Group, Inc.*		40,500		3,885,975
Lazard, Ltd. - Class A		241,400		6,302,954
LPL Investment Holdings, Inc.* (a)		78,100		2,385,174
				12,574,103
Chemicals—4.6%
Air Products & Chemicals, Inc.		37,000		3,152,030
Ashland, Inc.		102,100		5,836,036
Celanese Corp., Series A		104,000		4,604,080
Eastman Chemical Co.		109,900		4,292,694
				17,884,840
Commercial Banks—7.8%
CIT Group, Inc.*		49,600		1,729,552
City National Corp. (a)		104,500		4,616,810
Comerica, Inc.		145,000		3,741,000
Commerce Bancshares, Inc. (a)		78,500		2,992,420
Cullen/Frost Bankers, Inc. (a)		79,800		4,222,218
Hancock Holding Co. (a)		142,900		4,568,513
M&T Bank Corp. (a)		65,243		4,980,651
Signature Bank* (a)		66,200		3,971,338
				30,822,502
Commercial Services & Supplies—1.5%
Republic Services, Inc.		217,100		5,981,105
Construction & Engineering—2.5%
Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.*		122,900		4,987,282
URS Corp.*		133,301		4,681,531
				9,668,813
Containers & Packaging—2.8%
Ball Corp.		72,200		2,578,262
Greif, Inc. - Class A (a)		100,000		4,555,000
Temple-Inland, Inc.		123,400		3,913,014
				11,046,276
Diversified Telecommunication Services—1.1%
CenturyLink, Inc.		119,500	$	4,445,400
Electric Utilities—1.9%
Northeast Utilities		63,458		2,288,930
NV Energy, Inc.		31,100		508,485
PPL Corp.		164,700		4,845,474
				7,642,889
Electrical Equipment—0.5%
AMETEK, Inc.		47,500		1,999,750
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—2.8%
Anixter International, Inc.* (a)		73,435		4,379,663
Arrow Electronics, Inc.*		33,800		1,264,458
FLIR Systems, Inc. (a)		56,552		1,417,759
TE Connectivity, Ltd.		127,400		3,925,194
				10,987,074
Energy Equipment & Services—5.9%
Ensco plc (ADR)		69,700		3,270,324
GulfMark Offshore, Inc. - Class A*		25,000		1,050,250
Halliburton Co.		86,100		2,971,311
Helmerich & Payne, Inc.		43,400		2,532,824
Rowan Cos., Inc.*		83,700		2,538,621
Superior Energy Services, Inc.*		143,400		4,078,296
Tidewater, Inc. (a)		78,500		3,870,050
Weatherford International, Ltd.*		187,000		2,737,680
				23,049,356
Food Products—2.1%
Bunge, Ltd.		142,800		8,168,160
Gas Utilities—0.5%
Questar Corp.		100,500		1,995,930
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—0.9%
St. Jude Medical, Inc.		102,600		3,519,180
Health Care Providers & Services—4.2%
Coventry Health Care, Inc.*		113,600		3,450,032
DaVita, Inc.*		48,200		3,654,042
HealthSouth Corp.* (a)		75,482		1,333,767
Humana, Inc.		33,200		2,908,652
McKesson Corp.		64,499		5,025,117
				16,371,610
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—0.2%
Darden Restaurants, Inc. (a)		13,400		610,772

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Household Durables—2.6%
Garmin, Ltd. (a)		54,947	$	2,187,440
Harman International Industries, Inc.		105,200		4,001,808
Tupperware Brands Corp.		72,500		4,057,825
				10,247,073
Industrial Conglomerates—0.7%
Tyco International, Ltd.		61,700		2,882,007
Insurance—4.7%
ACE, Ltd.		56,500		3,961,780
Aon Corp.		55,100		2,578,680
Everest Reinsurance Group, Ltd.		33,400		2,808,606
Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.		122,800		3,882,936
PartnerRe, Ltd.		82,300		5,284,483
				18,516,485
IT Services—2.6%
Fiserv, Inc.*		113,400		6,661,116
Western Union Co.		191,500		3,496,790
				10,157,906
Machinery—8.0%
Dover Corp.		101,000		5,863,050
Eaton Corp.		94,500		4,113,585
IDEX Corp.		44,804		1,662,676
Kennametal, Inc.		80,336		2,933,871
Pall Corp.		73,500		4,200,525
Parker Hannifin Corp.		37,000		2,821,250
SPX Corp.		33,200		2,000,964
Timken Co. (The)		11,800		456,778
Trinity Industries, Inc. (a)		194,800		5,855,688
Woodward, Inc. (a)		36,000		1,473,480
				31,381,867
Media—5.5%
Discovery Communications, Inc. - Class A*		92,800		3,802,016
Interpublic Group of Cos., Inc. (The)		1,030,000		10,021,900
Omnicom Group, Inc.		176,400		7,863,912
				21,687,828
Metals & Mining—3.7%
Carpenter Technology Corp.		77,900		4,010,292
IAMGOLD Corp.		229,600		3,639,160
Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co.		121,998		5,940,083
Royal Gold, Inc.		13,800		930,534
				14,520,069
Multi-Utilities—1.3%
CMS Energy Corp.		237,000	$	5,232,960
Multiline Retail—1.6%
Macy’s, Inc.		200,900		6,464,962
Office Electronics—1.2%
Xerox Corp.		581,100		4,625,556
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—6.3%
Cabot Oil & Gas Corp.		15,600		1,184,040
CONSOL Energy, Inc.		51,200		1,879,040
El Paso Corp.		143,200		3,804,824
EQT Corp.		158,000		8,656,820
QEP Resources, Inc.		198,100		5,804,330
Range Resources Corp.		55,800		3,456,252
				24,785,306
Paper & Forest Products—0.6%
International Paper Co.		84,000		2,486,400
Pharmaceuticals—4.2%
Mylan, Inc.*		412,200		8,845,812
Par Pharmaceutical Cos., Inc.*		72,500		2,372,925
Warner Chilcott plc - Class A*		174,200		2,635,646
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.*		42,600		2,570,484
				16,424,867
Professional Services—0.2%
Dun & Bradstreet Corp.		8,400		628,572
Real Estate Investment Trusts—0.8%
Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc.		47,824		3,298,421
Road & Rail—0.8%
Kansas City Southern*		38,900		2,645,589
Knight Transportation, Inc.		25,600		400,384
				3,045,973
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—1.3%
Analog Devices, Inc.		60,314		2,158,035
Micron Technology, Inc.*		460,423		2,896,061
				5,054,096
Software—1.4%
Adobe Systems, Inc.*		94,680		2,676,604
Intuit, Inc.		56,200		2,955,558
				5,632,162

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares/Par Amount		Value
Specialty Retail—2.7%
Aeropostale, Inc.* (a)		39,302	$	599,355
Guess?, Inc. (a)		105,200		3,137,064
PetSmart, Inc.		26,000		1,333,540
Pier 1 Imports, Inc.* (a)		395,200		5,505,136
				10,575,095
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—0.4%
PVH Corp.		20,600		1,452,094
Total Common Stocks (Cost $344,862,691)				381,246,917
Short-Term Investments—14.0%
Mutual Funds—10.5%
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (b)		41,342,353		41,342,353
Repurchase Agreement—3.5%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $13,779,015 on 01/03/2012, collateralized by $13,550,000 U.S. Treasury Note at 1.750% due 1/31/14 with a value of $14,058,125.	$	13,779,000		13,779,000
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $55,121,353)				55,121,353
Total Investments—111.1% (Cost $399,984,044#)				436,368,270
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(11.1)%				(43,738,100	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	392,630,170

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $400,886,557. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $51,012,674 and $(15,530,961), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $35,481,713 for federal income tax purposes.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities loaned was $40,129,795 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $41,342,353. The cash collateral is invested in a money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian.

(b) Represents investment of collateral received from securities lending transactions.

(ADR)— An American Depositary Receipt is a certificate issued by a custodian bank representing the right to receive securities of the foreign issuer described. Trading on exchanges not located in the United States or Canada significantly influences the value of ADRs.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Total Common Stocks*	$	381,246,917	$	—	$	—	$	381,246,917
Short-Term Investments
Mutual Funds		41,342,353		—		—		41,342,353
Repurchase Agreement		—		13,779,000		—		13,779,000
Total Short-Term Investments		41,342,353		13,779,000		—		55,121,353
Total Investments	$	422,589,270	$	13,779,000	$	—	$	436,368,270

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)(b)	$	422,589,270
Repurchase Agreement		13,779,000
Cash		417
Receivable for investments sold		1,092,728
Receivable for shares sold		42,491
Dividends receivable		467,408
Total assets		437,971,314
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		3,314,921
Shares redeemed		303,117
Collateral for securities loaned		41,342,353
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		225,164
Distribution and service fees - Class B		75,775
Administration fees		1,872
Custodian and accounting fees		5,472
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		47,403
Total liabilities		45,341,144
Net Assets	$	392,630,170
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	463,028,560
Accumulated net realized loss		(108,541,146	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments		36,384,226
Undistributed net investment income		1,758,530
Net Assets	$	392,630,170
Net Assets
Class A	$	35,554,372
Class B		357,075,798
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		2,311,974
Class B		23,529,542
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	15.38
Class B		15.18

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreement, was $386,205,044.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $40,129,795.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	5,713,913
Interest (b)		113,511
Total investment income		5,827,424
Expenses
Management fees		2,832,297
Administration fees		23,883
Custodian and accounting fees		65,505
Distribution and service fees - Class B		951,043
Audit and tax services		33,061
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Shareholder reporting		48,608
Insurance		2,408
Miscellaneous		7,466
Total expenses		4,032,981
Less broker commission recapture		(7,440	)
Net expenses		4,025,541
Net investment income		1,801,883
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments
Net realized gain on investments		34,259,445
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments		(50,735,165	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments		(16,475,720	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(14,673,837	)

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $13,174.

(b) Includes net income on securities loaned of $112,148.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	1,801,883		$	2,365,077
Net realized gain on investments		34,259,445			51,588,965
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments		(50,735,165	)		32,900,590
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations		(14,673,837	)		86,854,632
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(297,180	)		(301,340	)
Class B		(2,004,268	)		(1,948,665	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(2,301,448	)		(2,250,005	)
Net decrease in net assets from capital share transactions		(15,274,882	)		(5,032,269	)
Net Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets		(32,250,167	)		79,572,358
Net assets at beginning of period		424,880,337			345,307,979
Net assets at end of period	$	392,630,170		$	424,880,337
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	1,758,530		$	2,291,258

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		220,483		$	3,623,760			182,741		$	2,570,946
Reinvestments		17,258			297,180			20,912			301,340
Redemptions		(576,940	)		(9,413,328	)		(530,513	)		(7,240,700	)
Net decrease		(339,199	)	$	(5,492,388	)		(326,860	)	$	(4,368,414	)
Class B
Sales		3,886,401		$	61,853,567			4,666,595		$	63,544,974
Reinvestments		117,690			2,004,268			136,748			1,948,665
Redemptions		(4,612,663	)		(73,640,329	)		(4,864,726	)		(66,157,494	)
Net decrease		(608,572	)	$	(9,782,494	)		(61,383	)	$	(663,855	)
Decrease derived from capital shares transactions				$	(15,274,882	)				$	(5,032,269	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	16.04		$	12.84		$	10.40		$	19.70		$	22.79
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.10			0.12			0.11			0.26			0.16
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.64	)		3.19			2.60			(7.04	)		0.33
Total from investment operations		(0.54	)		3.31			2.71			(6.78	)		0.49
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.12	)		(0.11	)		(0.27	)		(0.13	)		(0.24	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(2.39	)		(3.34	)
Total distributions		(0.12	)		(0.11	)		(0.27	)		(2.52	)		(3.58	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	15.38		$	16.04		$	12.84		$	10.40		$	19.70
Total Return (%)		(3.46	)		25.84			26.86			(38.66	)		0.90
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.73			0.75			0.76			0.75			0.75
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.73			0.75			0.76			0.75			0.73
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.65			0.86			1.04			1.78			0.74
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		47.3			76.8			112.7			30.2			38.4
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	35.6		$	42.5		$	38.2		$	36.9		$	77.1

	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	15.84		$	12.69		$	10.27		$	19.48		$	22.56
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.06			0.08			0.08			0.22			0.11
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.64	)		3.15			2.57			(6.95	)		0.31
Total from investment operations		(0.58	)		3.23			2.65			(6.73	)		0.42
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.08	)		(0.08	)		(0.23	)		(0.09	)		(0.16	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(2.39	)		(3.34	)
Total distributions		(0.08	)		(0.08	)		(0.23	)		(2.48	)		(3.50	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	15.18		$	15.84		$	12.69		$	10.27		$	19.48
Total Return (%)		(3.70	)		25.53			26.53			(38.77	)		0.60
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.98			1.00			1.01			1.00			1.01
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.98			1.00			1.01			1.00			0.98
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.41			0.62			0.76			1.56			0.53
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		47.3			76.8			112.7			30.2			38.4
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	357.1		$	382.3		$	307.1		$	228.3		$	422.8

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A and B Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to broker commission recapture, partnerships, Real Estate Investment Trust (REITs), deferred trustees’ compensation, capital loss carryforwards and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Securities Lending - The Portfolio may lend its portfolio securities to certain qualified brokers who borrow securities in order to complete certain securities transactions. By lending its portfolio securities, the Portfolio attempts to increase its net investment income through the receipt of income on the loaned securities. Any gain or loss in the market price of the loaned securities that might occur and any interest earned or dividends declared during the term of the loan would accrue to the account of the Portfolio.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

The Trust has entered into a securities lending arrangement with the custodian, State Street Bank and Trust Company (the “custodian”). Under this arrangement, the custodian is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral at least equal to 102% of the market value of the loaned securities (105% for foreign equity securities), at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities must be maintained for the duration of the loan. Cash collateral is generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The Navigator Portfolio is a registered money market fund which invests in a variety of high quality U.S. dollar-denominated instruments. If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower shall be required to deliver, by the close of business on the following business day, an additional amount of collateral so that the total amount of posted collateral equals at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of net income (income after the deduction of expenses and fees of the Navigator Portfolio) on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the custodian and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by U.S. Treasuries, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the custodian. The risks associated with lending portfolio securities include, but are not limited to, possible delays in receiving additional collateral or in the recovery of the loaned securities, possible loss of rights in the collateral should the borrower fail financially, as well as risk of loss in the value of the collateral or the value of the investments made with the collateral. Net interest income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2011 is disclosed in the footnotes to the Statement of Operations. Any outstanding loans by the Portfolio at December 31, 2011 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

Directed Brokerage Agreement - The Trust has entered into a directed brokerage arrangement with State Street Global Markets (“SSGM”). Under this arrangement, the Portfolio directs certain trades to SSGM in return for a recapture credit. SSGM issues a cash rebate to the Portfolio. Amounts paid to the Portfolio are shown separately as broker commission recapture on the Statement of Operations of the Portfolio. Additionally, these amounts have been excluded from the calculation of the ratio of net expenses to average net assets presented in the Financial Highlights for each share class.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with Lord, Abbett & Co. LLC (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year  ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$2,832,297		0.70	%	First $200 Million
		0.65	%	$200 Million to $500 Million
		0.625	%	Over $500 Million

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Distribution Agreement and Plan - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A and Class B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B distribution plan provides that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B Shares. However under the Class B distribution agreement, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B distribution plan are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B distribution plan and distribution agreement, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. as designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$—	$	194,192,332	$	—	$	209,986,476

5. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

7. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$2,301,448	$	2,250,005	$	—	$	—	$	2,301,448	$	2,250,005

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards			Total
$1,783,595	$	—	$	35,481,716	$	(107,638,634	)	$	(70,373,323	)

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses.

As of December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and the pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards expiring on December 31, 2017 were $107,638,634.

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

9. Subsequent Events

At a meeting held on January 20, 2012, the Board of Trustees of the Trust approved an Agreement and Plan of Reorganization (the “Plan”) providing for the acquisition of all the assets of the Neuberger Berman Mid Cap Value Portfolio (which changed its name to Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio) (“MSF Portfolio”), a portfolio of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. (“MSF”), by the Portfolio, in exchange for shares of the Portfolio and the assumption by the Portfolio of the liabilities of MSF Portfolio. In addition to approving the Plan, the Board of Directors of MSF voted to

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

9. Subsequent Events - continued

submit the Plan to shareholders of MSF Portfolio for their approval. On or about April 23, 2012, the shareholders of MSF Portfolio are expected to consider the approval of the Plan. If the Plan is approved by shareholders of MSF Portfolio, the reorganization is expected to close on or about April 30, 2012.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 23, 2012

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe for the one- and three- year periods ended June 30, 2011 and underperformed the median of its Performance Universe for the five- year period ended June 30, 2011. The Board also considered that the Portfolio outperformed its Lipper Index for the one-, three- and five- year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board also considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Russell Midcap Value Index, for the one- and five- year periods ended September 30, 2011, and outperformed its benchmark for the three- year period ended September 30, 2011, and outperformed its blended benchmark, the S&P Midcap 400/Citigroup Value Index, for the one- and three- year periods ended September 30, 2011, and underperformed its blended benchmark for the five-year period ended September 30, 2011. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance, and also noted the Portfolio’s portfolio manager change effective July 2008. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s overall performance was satisfactory.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the median of the Expense Group, Expense Universe and the Sub-advised Expense Universe. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were above the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

With respect to the Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee and sub-advisory fee each contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board further considered that the Portfolio’s management fees were below the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

25

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio

Managed by Eaton Vance Management

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A and B shares of the Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio returned 2.33% and 2.01%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Standard & Poor’s/Loan Syndications and Trading Association (“S&P/LSTA”) Leveraged Loan Index¹ (the “Index”), returned 1.52%.

Market Environment/Conditions

Over the course of the twelve months ended December 31, 2011, macroeconomic fears seemed to emerge and fade in the investor consciousness with markets shifting back and forth between a “risk on” and “risk off” focus. The macroeconomic factors contributing to this environment were well-publicized ranging from continued uncertainty in the Eurozone, the contentious debt ceiling negotiation in the United States (“U.S.”), the U.S. debt downgrade by S&P, as well as concerns related to the economic growth prospects of the U.S. and China.

The technical conditions of the floating rate loan market were not immune to the continuously evolving macroeconomic picture. From a demand standpoint, the floating rate loan asset class was a beneficiary of healthy inflows during the first half of 2011, buoyed by robust retail demand. Flows turned negative in August, when investors pulled $5.5 billion out of the asset class following broader macroeconomic developments including the Federal Reserve’s (Fed) announcement that it would be anchoring short-term interest rates at exceptionally low levels through at least mid 2013. Following significant August and September outflows, retail outflows have persisted into the fourth quarter 2011, but at a much reduced level, averaging $0.5 billion per month according to S&P’s Leveraged Commentary and Data (LCD). On the supply side, new loan issuance peaked during the first half of 2011 with levels not seen since prior to 2009. New loan issuance moderated during the second half of 201l with fewer deals coming to market.

The fundamentals of the underlying issuers continued to be strong as measured by year-over-year quarterly EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) growth, up 15% in the third quarter for public filers in the Index. This was the ninth consecutive quarter of increases in such data. Covenant relief requests and new defaults also diminished to historically low levels as further indicators of fundamental improvement. The 12-month market default rate (defaults over the last 12-months) fell to 0.17% in December, the lowest level in 48 months.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

Relative to the Index, the Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio maintains a greater focus on higher quality loans. In a reversal from 2010 results where the lower quality segments of the loan market were the strongest performers, higher quality loans outperformed in 2011. The strongest-performing loan group during the period was the BBB loan segment (+3.1%) versus the Index, followed by BB (+2.7%), and B loans (+2.1%). The biggest laggards during the year were those loans in the defaulted loan category (-8.6%) and CCC loan group (-6.3%). The Portfolio’s higher quality focus contributed to the Portfolio’s outperformance versus the Index during the year, particularly it’s underweight to CCC loans, overweight to BB loans, as well as not owning any loans in default.

The Portfolio employs a rigorous, bottom-up credit research process where loan selection drives Portfolio performance. With that said, analyzing results from the perspective of industry exposures can be instructive. Underperformance in the two largest underweighted industries, Publishing (-10.0%) and Utilities (-1.4%), was a benefit to relative results as the Publishing industry was the worst-performing industry group by a meaningful margin over the period. The Portfolio’s largest industry overweight exposure, Business Equipment & Services (+1.1%), detracted from relative performance as those loans failed to keep pace with the broader loan market.

The Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio is a highly diversified portfolio with 330 loan issuer positions as of December 31, 2011. The Portfolio also maintained broad industry diversification, with exposure across 34 industries as of the end of the period. As of year end, the Portfolio maintained a meaningful overweight to higher quality BB loans (48.9% vs. 41.3%) and a significant underweight to loans rated CCC or below by S&P (0.4% vs. 6.9%). The Portfolio’s higher quality positioning was also displayed in its average loan price of $96.99 vs. a $92.71 average loan price for the Index as of December 31, 2011. Additionally, given the floating rate nature of the asset class, the Portfolio is exposed to limited interest rate risk as the loans in the Portfolio reset their coupons every 48 days on average as December 31, 2011, resulting in a Portfolio duration of roughly 0.13 years (48/365) for the period.

Scott H. Page, CFA

Craig P. Russ

Andrew N. Sveen, CFA

Portfolio Managers

Eaton Vance Management

* This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio

Managed by Eaton Vance Management

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Issuers

	% of Net Assets
Intelsat Jackson Holdings S.A.		1.3
Community Health Systems, Inc.		1.3
HCA, Inc.		1.2
SunGard Data Systems, Inc.		1.2
Rite Aid Corp.		1.1
MetroPCS Wireless, Inc.		1.0
Nielsen Finance LLC		1.0
Ineos U.S. Finance LLC		0.9
Del Monte Foods Co.		0.9
First Data Corp.		0.9

Top Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Senior Floating-Rate Interests		97.1
Cash & Cash Equivalents		2.9

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio managed by Eaton Vance Management vs. S&P/LSTA Leveraged Loan Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		Since Inception3
Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio—Class A		2.33%		3.43%
Class B		2.01%		3.12%
S&P/LSTA Leveraged Loan Index1		1.52%		3.17%

The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other class of shares because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹The Standard & Poor’s/Loan Syndications and Trading Association (S&P/LSTA) Index is a weekly total return index that uses mark-to-market pricing to calculate market value change. The Index tracks the current outstanding balance and spread over LIBOR for fully funded term loans. The facilities included represent a broad cross section of leveraged loans syndicated in the U.S., including dollar-denominated loans to overseas issuers.

²“Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income and capital gain distributions.

³ Inception of the Class A and Class B shares is 4/30/2010. Index returns are based on an inception date of 4/30/2010.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A
Actual		0.67%	$	1,000.00	$	1,003.90	$	3.38
Hypothetical*		0.67%		1,000.00		1,021.82		3.41
Class B
Actual		0.92%	$	1,000.00	$	1,001.90	$	4.64
Hypothetical*		0.92%		1,000.00		1,020.56		4.69

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Senior Floating-Rate Interests (a)—97.1% of Net Assets

Security Description	Principal Amount		Value
Aerospace & Defense—1.2%
DAE Aviation Holdings, Inc. Term Loan 5.430%, 07/31/14	$	5,025,771	$	4,893,844
Ducommun, Inc. Term Loan 5.500%, 06/28/17		497,500		490,038
DynCorp International LLC Term Loan 6.250%, 07/07/16		1,154,823		1,137,790
TransDigm Group, Inc. Term Loan 4.000%, 02/14/17		2,904,472		2,884,503
				9,406,175
Air Freight & Logistics—0.1%
Evergreen International Aviation, Inc. Term Loan 11.500%, 06/30/15		814,687		735,256
Auto Components—2.5%
Delphi Corp. Term Loan 3.500%, 03/31/17		1,810,447		1,807,429
Federal-Mogul Corp. Term Loan 2.210%, 12/29/14		3,604,240		3,344,436
2.220%, 12/28/15		2,899,162		2,690,182
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (The) Second Lien Term Loan 1.930%, 04/30/14		5,000,000		4,837,500
HHI Holdings LLC Term Loan 7.000%, 03/21/17		397,000		393,030
Metaldyne Co. LLC Term Loan 5.250%, 05/18/17		2,458,925		2,434,336
Tenneco, Inc. Term Loan 4.800%, 06/03/15		985,000		985,000
Veyance Technologies, Inc. Delayed Draw Term Loan 2.800%, 07/31/14		311,106		289,199
Term Loan 2.800%, 07/31/14		2,172,074		2,019,122
				18,800,234
Automobiles—0.9%
Chrysler Group LLC Term Loan 6.000%, 05/24/17	$	4,081,994	$	3,872,792
Tomkins LLC Term Loan 4.250%, 09/29/16		3,013,565		3,008,858
				6,881,650
Biotechnology—0.5%
Catalent Pharma Solutions, Inc. Dollar Term Loan 2.550%, 04/10/14		2,258,612		2,178,618
Grifols, Inc. Term Loan 6.000%, 06/01/17		1,318,375		1,317,140
				3,495,758
Building Products—0.3%
Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Term Loan 4.000%, 03/09/18		918,062		912,898
Goodman Global Holdings, Inc. First Lien Term Loan 5.750%, 10/28/16		1,047,188		1,048,330
				1,961,228
Capital Markets—1.6%
Grosvenor Capital Management Holdings LLP Extended Term Loan 4.310%, 12/05/16		1,507,175		1,450,656
Harbourvest Partners LLC Term Loan 6.250%, 12/16/16		729,576		729,576
LPL Holdings, Inc.
Extended Term Loan 4.250%, 06/25/15		1,809,737		1,818,786
Term Loan 2.110%, 06/28/13		574,937		573,859
5.250%, 06/28/17		1,311,571		1,314,850
Mondrian Investment Partners, Ltd. Term Loan 5.500%, 07/12/18		808,510		808,510
Nuveen Investments, Inc. Extended Term Loan 6.010%, 05/12/17		2,023,796		1,951,067

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Senior Floating-Rate Interests (a)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount		Value
Capital Markets—(Continued)
First Lien Term Loan 3.510%, 11/13/14	$	2,876,204	$	2,749,651
Incremental Term Loan 0.000%, 05/13/17 (b)(c)		500,000		503,750
Sheridan Production Partners I LLC Term Loan 6.500%, 04/20/17		599,325		600,261
				12,500,966
Chemicals—5.6%
Ashland, Inc. Term Loan 3.750%, 08/23/18		2,018,853		2,029,419
AZ Chem US, Inc. Term Loan 0.000%, 12/22/17 (b)(c)		1,250,000		1,253,906
Chemtura Corp. Term Loan 5.500%, 08/27/16		1,200,000		1,208,250
General Chemical Corp. Term Loan 5.000%, 10/06/15		346,655		345,066
Harko C.V. Term Loan 5.750%, 08/02/17		475,000		473,812
Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. 0.000%, 05/05/13 (c)		107,916		102,520
Term Loan 0.000%, 05/06/13 (b)		108,489		103,608
Houghton International, Inc. Term Loan 6.750%, 01/29/16		1,556,434		1,553,516
Huish Detergents, Inc. Term Loan 2.260%, 04/25/14		1,488,312		1,322,737
Huntsman International LLC Extended Term Loan 2.880%, 04/19/17		1,375,819		1,320,786
Term Loan 1.930%, 04/21/14		504,601		491,040
Ineos U.S. Finance LLC Term Loan 0.000%, 12/16/13 (b)(c)		3,426,545		3,507,925
0.000%, 12/16/14 (b)(c)		3,592,996		3,678,330
Chemicals—(Continued)
MacDermid, Inc. Term Loan 2.300%, 04/11/14	$	1,818,724	$	1,774,393
Momentive Performance Materials, Inc. Extended Term Loan 3.810%, 05/05/15		4,049,240		3,879,678
Momentive Specialty Chemicals, Inc. Extended Term Loan 4.190%, 05/05/15		974,122		935,162
4.380%, 05/05/15		2,237,703		2,137,018
Term Loan 0.000%, due 05/06/13 (b)(c)		891,511		858,359
Norit N.V. Term Loan 6.750%, 07/07/17		1,172,063		1,166,202
Omnova Solutions, Inc. Term Loan 5.750%, 05/31/17		1,809,231		1,782,093
Polypore, Inc. Incremental Term Loan 2.300%, 07/03/14		1,963,174		1,922,684
Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc. Term Loan 3.500%, 02/09/18		1,592,000		1,599,629
Solutia, Inc. Term Loan 3.500%, 08/01/17		1,735,609		1,738,863
Styron S.A.R.L LLC Term Loan 6.000%, 08/02/17		2,277,000		1,971,502
Unifrax Corp. Term Loan 7.000%, 11/28/18		350,000		350,875
Univar, Inc. Term Loan 5.000%, 06/30/17		5,053,962		4,889,709
				42,397,082
Commercial Services & Supplies—3.6%
Allied Security Holdings LLC First Lien Term Loan 5.000%, 02/03/17		397,000		397,496
Altegrity, Inc. Term Loan 7.750%, 02/20/15		441,515		437,836
3.040%, 02/21/15		2,211,014		2,059,007

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Senior Floating-Rate Interests (a)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount		Value
Commercial Services & Supplies—(Continued)
ARAMARK Corp. Extended Letter of Credit 3.490%, 07/26/16	$	154,267	$	150,732
Extended Term Loan 3.830%, 07/26/16		2,345,733		2,291,978
Synthetic Letter of Credit 2.170%, 01/27/14		160,084		157,083
Term Loan 2.450%, 01/27/14		1,987,191		1,949,933
Brickman Group Holdings, Inc. Term Loan 7.250%, 10/14/16		717,750		719,993
ClientLogic Corp. Extended Term Loan 7.140%, 01/30/17		2,394,165		2,246,026
Delos Aircraft, Inc. Term Loan 7.000%, 03/17/16		1,075,000		1,081,987
IAP Worldwide Services, Inc. First Lien Term Loan 9.250%, 12/28/12		1,411,602		1,341,022
KAR Auction Services, Inc. Term Loan 5.000%, 05/19/17		2,810,875		2,779,253
Merrill Communications LLC Term Loan 7.500%, 12/24/12		1,593,936		1,535,491
Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc. Term Loan 6.000%, 06/04/16		950,866		946,111
ServiceMaster Co. Delayed Draw Term Loan 2.800%, 07/24/14		223,956		214,158
Term Loan 2.830%, 07/24/14		2,743,711		2,623,673
U.S. Security Holdings, Inc. Delayed Draw Term Loan 1.500%, 07/28/17 (c)		114,100		112,769
Term Loan 6.000%, 07/28/17		584,435		577,617
West Corp. Term Loan 2.750%, 10/24/13		2,308,117		2,295,134
4.580%, 07/15/16		749,384		746,574
Commercial Services & Supplies—(Continued)
4.680%, 07/15/16	$	2,642,067	$	2,632,159
				27,296,032
Communications Equipment—0.5%
CommScope, Inc. Term Loan 5.000%, 01/14/18		2,257,937		2,248,528
DG FastChannel, Inc. Term Loan 5.750%, 07/26/18		1,517,375		1,494,622
TowerCo Finance LLC Term Loan 5.250%, 02/02/17		471,438		472,027
				4,215,177
Computers & Peripherals—0.2%
Dealer Computer Services, Inc. Term Loan 3.750%, 04/20/18		1,763,732		1,757,559
Construction & Engineering—0.3%
Brock Holdings III, Inc. Term Loan 6.000%, 03/16/17		868,438		844,556
Colfax Corp. Term Loan 0.000%, 12/07/18 (b)(c)		1,250,000		1,252,149
Wyle Services Corp. Term Loan 5.750%, 03/27/17		513,599		503,327
				2,600,032
Construction Materials—0.5%
Fairmount Minerals, Ltd. Term Loan 5.250%, 03/15/17		3,929,250		3,929,250
Containers & Packaging—2.0%
Berry Plastics Corp. Term Loan 2.280%, 04/03/15		3,061,791		2,926,986
BWAY Corp. Term Loan 4.500%, 02/23/18		1,892,080		1,870,005
Consolidated Container Co. LLC Term Loan 2.560%, 03/28/14		980,165		920,742

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Senior Floating-Rate Interests (a)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount		Value
Containers & Packaging—(Continued)
Graphic Packaging International, Inc. Term Loan 2.390%, 05/16/14	$	2,331,077	$	2,322,753
Reynolds Group Holdings, Inc. Term Loan 6.500%, 02/09/18		2,984,738		2,962,352
6.500%, 08/09/18		3,626,471		3,611,741
Sealed Air Corp. Term Loan 4.750%, 10/03/18		617,188		624,517
				15,239,096
Distributors—1.2%
Autoparts Holdings, Ltd. First Lien Term Loan 6.500%, 07/28/17		374,063		374,296
Michael Foods Group, Inc. Term Loan 4.250%, 02/23/18		2,338,025		2,311,723
VWR Funding, Inc. Term Loan 2.800%, 06/30/14		6,365,695		6,126,981
				8,813,000
Diversified Consumer Services—1.0%
Affinion Group, Inc. Term Loan 5.000%, 10/10/16		2,608,495		2,318,300
BAR/BRI Review Courses, Inc. Term Loan 6.000%, 06/16/17		675,000		674,156
Laureate Education, Inc. Extended Term Loan 5.250%, 08/15/18		3,962,532		3,701,667
Meritas LLC First Lien Term Loan 7.500%, 07/28/17		1,223,430		1,205,078
				7,899,201
Diversified Financial Services—2.9%
Asset Acceptance Capital Corp. Term Loan 8.750%, 11/08/17		1,225,000		1,182,125
BRSP LLC Term Loan 7.500%, 06/04/14		783,110		787,026
Diversified Financial Services—(Continued)
Citco III, Ltd. Term Loan 6.250%, 06/29/18	$	1,567,125	$	1,496,604
International Lease Finance Corp. Term Loan 6.750%, 03/17/15		3,950,000		3,973,866
MSCI, Inc. Term Loan 3.750%, 03/14/17		1,776,026		1,790,456
NDS Finance, Ltd. Term Loan 4.000%, 03/12/18		1,778,198		1,733,743
Nielsen Finance LLC Term Loan 2.280%, 08/09/13		2,107,769		2,085,812
3.530%, 05/02/16		2,974,836		2,918,130
4.030%, 05/02/16		2,456,282		2,430,695
Shield Finance Co. S.A.R.L. Incremental Term Loan 7.630%, 06/15/16		497,500		497,500
Term Loan 7.750%, 06/15/16		525,250		525,250
Trans Union LLC Term Loan 4.750%, 02/12/18		2,977,500		2,975,639
				22,396,846
Diversified Telecommunication Services—2.3%
Alaska Communications Systems Holdings, Inc. Term Loan 5.500%, 10/21/16		1,113,750		1,045,997
Intelsat Jackson Holdings S.A. Term Loan 5.250%, 04/02/18		9,952,494		9,931,763
MCC Iowa LLC Term Loan 1.970%, 01/30/15		1,197,096		1,132,253
NTELOS, Inc. Term Loan 4.000%, 08/07/15		1,211,225		1,199,113
Telesat Canada Term Loan 3.300%, 10/31/14		4,037,980		4,006,011
				17,315,137

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Senior Floating-Rate Interests (a)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount		Value
Electric Utilities—0.5%
Equipower Resources Holdings LLC Term Loan 5.750%, 01/26/18	$	361,371	$	343,302
Texas Competitive Electric Holdings Co. LLC/TCEH Finance, Inc. Extended Term Loan 4.780%, 10/10/17		5,151,565		3,279,832
				3,623,134
Electrical Equipment—0.1%
Pelican Products, Inc. Term Loan 5.000%, 03/07/17		495,000		491,288
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—1.5%
Aeroflex, Inc. Term Loan 4.250%, 05/09/18		1,169,125		1,104,823
Eagle Parent, Inc. Term Loan 5.000%, 05/16/18		2,611,875		2,466,046
Sensata Technologies Finance Co. LLC Term Loan 4.000%, 05/11/18		5,024,750		4,987,064
Sensus USA, Inc. First Lien Term Loan 4.750%, 05/09/17		3,151,188		3,143,310
				11,701,243
Energy Equipment & Services—0.7%
Frac Tech International LLC Term Loan 6.250%, 05/06/16 (b)(c)		5,569,275		5,507,055
Food & Staples Retailing—2.4%
JRD Holdings, Inc. Term Loan 2.550%, 07/02/14		1,959,060		1,933,348
Pantry, Inc. (The) Term Loan 2.050%, 05/15/14		1,786,260		1,733,417
Rite Aid Corp. Term Loan 2.040%, 06/04/14		4,396,417		4,175,681
4.500%, 03/02/18		4,006,470		3,834,192
Food & Staples Retailing—(Continued)
Roundy’s Supermarkets, Inc. Extended Term Loan 7.000%, 11/03/13	$	3,250,592	$	3,250,592
SUPERVALU, Inc. Term Loan 4.500%, 04/28/18		3,203,306		3,145,647
				18,072,877
Food Products—3.5%
American Seafoods Group LLC Term Loan 4.250%, 03/08/18		431,975		417,935
Darling International, Inc. Term Loan 5.750%, 12/16/16		100,000		100,406
Dean Foods Co. Extended Term Loan 3.300%, 04/02/14		474,359		463,804
Term Loan 2.080%, 04/02/14		2,653,833		2,539,386
Del Monte Foods Co. Term Loan 4.500%, 03/08/18		7,512,250		7,155,418
Dole Food Co., Inc. Term Loan 5.040%, 07/06/18		914,156		912,585
Earthbound Holdings III LLC Term Loan 5.500%, 12/21/16		470,250		464,372
High Liner Foods, Inc. Term Loan 7.750%, 01/03/18		625,000		621,875
JBS USA Holdings, Inc. Term Loan 4.250%, 05/25/18		3,729,504		3,645,591
Pierre Foods, Inc. First Lien Term Loan 7.000%, 09/30/16		1,262,250		1,259,883
Pinnacle Foods Holdings Corp. Term Loan 2.800%, 04/02/14		2,488,177		2,432,955
6.010%, 04/02/14		424,862		427,199
Solvest, Ltd. Term Loan 5.030%, 07/06/18		1,697,719		1,694,800

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Senior Floating-Rate Interests (a)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount		Value
Food Products—(Continued)
U.S. Foodservice, Inc. Term Loan 2.790%, 07/03/14	$	1,484,456	$	1,377,099
Windsor Quality Food Co., Ltd. Term Loan 5.000%, 02/16/17		1,196,250		1,118,494
Wm. Bolthouse Farms, Inc. First Lien Term Loan 5.500%, 02/11/16		1,982,332		1,976,138
				26,607,940
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—3.0%
Alere, Inc. Incremental Term Loan 4.500%, 06/30/17		550,000		536,250
Term Loan 4.500%, 06/30/17		2,219,438		2,172,969
Bausch & Lomb, Inc. Delayed Draw Term Loan 3.550%, 04/24/15		1,085,393		1,063,007
Term Loan 3.770%, 04/24/15		2,570,506		2,517,490
Biomet, Inc. Term Loan 3.470%, 03/25/15		4,910,256		4,791,885
Convatec, Inc. Term Loan 5.750%, 12/22/16		2,925,462		2,908,972
DJO Finance LLC Term Loan 3.300%, 05/20/14		3,039,452		2,923,573
Fresenius U.S. Finance I, Inc. Term Loan 3.500%, 09/10/14		975,684		974,464
Immucor, Inc. Term Loan 7.250%, 08/17/18		648,375		652,967
Kinetic Concepts, Inc. Term Loan 7.000%, 05/04/18		4,375,000		4,419,953
				22,961,530
Health Care Providers & Services—8.8%
Alliance Healthcare Services, Inc. Term Loan 7.250%, 06/01/16		2,279,880		2,009,145
Health Care Providers & Services—(Continued)
Ardent Medical Services, Inc. First Lien Term Loan 6.500%, 09/15/15	$	987,452	$	981,280
Term Loan 6.500%, 09/18/15		623,423		619,526
Aveta Holdings LLC Term Loan 8.500%, 04/14/15		1,478,721		1,467,630
Carestream Health, Inc. Term Loan 5.000%, 02/25/17		2,034,326		1,843,608
CDRL MS, Inc. Term Loan 6.750%, 09/30/16		660,491		654,987
Community Health Systems, Inc. Delayed Draw Term Loan 2.550%, 07/25/14		360,015		350,179
Extended Term Loan 3.960%, 01/25/17		5,154,635		4,997,846
Term Loan 2.760%, 07/25/14		4,697,467		4,569,128
CRC Health Corp. Extended Term Loan 5.080%, 11/16/15		2,130,037		1,986,260
DaVita, Inc. Term Loan 4.500%, 10/20/16		1,856,250		1,857,178
Drumm Investors LLC Term Loan 5.000%, 05/04/18		1,994,867		1,744,512
Emergency Medical Services Corp. Term Loan 5.250%, 05/25/18		3,987,450		3,899,395
Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc. Term Loan 4.010%, 12/01/16		1,815,000		1,756,012
HCA, Inc. Extended Term Loan 2.800%, 05/01/16		962,500		905,201
3.830%, 03/31/17		4,500,000		4,280,625
3.550%, 05/01/18		4,281,543		4,057,653
Health Management Associates, Inc. Term Loan 4.500%, 11/16/18		1,100,000		1,096,144

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Senior Floating-Rate Interests (a)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount		Value
Health Care Providers & Services—(Continued)
Iasis Healthcare LLC Term Loan 5.000%, 05/03/18	$	1,560,688	$	1,509,965
IMS Health, Inc. Term Loan 4.500%, 08/25/17		2,533,120		2,529,954
inVentiv Health, Inc. Incremental Term Loan 6.750%, 05/15/18		1,215,812		1,167,180
Term Loan 6.500%, 08/04/16		2,198,610		2,110,666
Kindred Healthcare, Inc. Term Loan 5.250%, 06/01/18		1,393,000		1,301,295
Multiplan, Inc. Term Loan 4.750%, 08/26/17		2,902,425		2,775,444
Prestige Brands, Inc. Term Loan 4.750%, 03/24/16		389,981		388,275
Prime Healthcare Services, Inc. Term Loan 7.250%, 04/22/15		1,755,419		1,693,979
Radnet Management, Inc. Term Loan 5.750%, 04/06/16		982,500		933,989
Renal Advantage Holdings, Inc. Term Loan 5.750%, 12/16/16		470,250		470,544
Res-Care, Inc. Term Loan 7.250%, 12/22/16		2,033,222		1,951,893
RPI Finance Trust Term Loan 4.000%, 05/09/18		3,283,500		3,266,058
Select Medical Corp. Term Loan 5.500%, 05/25/18		3,208,875		3,069,825
Universal Health Services, Inc. Term Loan 3.750%, 11/15/16		1,208,234		1,207,775
Vanguard Health Holding Co. II LLC/Vanguard Holding Co. II, Inc. Term Loan 5.000%, 01/29/16		2,709,007		2,662,729
Health Care Providers & Services—(Continued)
WC Luxco S.A.R.L. Term Loan 4.250%, 03/15/18	$	1,138,539	$	1,126,442
				67,242,322
Health Care Technology—0.5%
MedAssets, Inc. Term Loan 5.250%, 11/16/16		1,366,890		1,364,327
TriZetto Group, Inc. (The) Term Loan 4.750%, 05/02/18		2,711,375		2,671,835
				4,036,162
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—5.6%
Ameristar Casinos, Inc. Term Loan 4.000%, 04/13/18		794,000		794,661
Brand Energy & Infrastructure Services, Inc. Term Loan 2.870%, 02/07/14		1,857,127		1,515,106
Burger King Corp. Term Loan 4.500%, 10/19/16		5,509,225		5,425,440
Caesars Entertainment Operating Co., Inc. Term Loan 3.370%, 01/28/15		2,500,000		2,180,357
3.420%, 01/28/15		4,000,000		3,484,444
Cedar Fair, L.P. Term Loan 4.000%, 12/15/17		1,929,578		1,928,845
Dave & Buster’s, Inc. Term Loan 5.500%, 06/01/16		591,995		591,995
Denny’s, Inc. Term Loan 5.250%, 09/30/16		1,276,200		1,275,137
DineEquity, Inc. Term Loan 4.270%, 10/19/17		3,814,272		3,767,547
Dunkin’ Brands Group, Inc. Term Loan 4.000%, 11/23/17		5,681,572		5,604,632

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Senior Floating-Rate Interests (a)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount		Value
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—(Continued)
Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc. Term Loan 4.750%, 11/01/13	$	694,750	$	691,560
Las Vegas Sands LLC Delayed Draw Term Loan 1.930%, 05/23/14		326,256		320,343
2.930%, 11/23/16		579,940		558,193
Extended Term Loan 2.930%, 11/23/16		1,225,090		1,177,618
Term Loan 1.930%, 05/23/14		1,590,295		1,561,471
OSI Restaurant Partners LLC Revolving Term Loan 3.540%, 06/14/13		588,299		558,965
Term Loan 2.740%, 06/14/14		6,030,312		5,729,634
Penn National Gaming, Inc. Term Loan 3.750%, 07/16/18		1,069,625		1,074,552
Sagittarius Restaurants LLC Term Loan 7.510%, 05/18/15		277,734		275,188
Sea World Parks & Entertainment, Inc. Term Loan 3.050%, 02/17/16		491,176		483,809
4.000%, 08/17/17		454,906		453,579
Six Flags Theme Parks, Inc. Term Loan 4.250%, 12/20/18		2,025,000		2,018,672
Town Sports International, Inc. Term Loan 7.000%, 05/11/18		972,500		966,422
Wendy’s/Arby’s Restaurants LLC Term Loan 5.000%, 05/24/17		514,664		514,825
				42,952,995
Household Durables—0.5%
National Bedding Co. LLC Extended First Lien Term Loan 4.130%, 11/28/13		2,156,021		2,129,970
Yankee Candle Co., Inc. (The) Term Loan 2.550%, 02/06/14		1,668,906		1,649,832
				3,779,802
Household Products—0.4%
Spectrum Brands, Inc. Term Loan 5.000%, 06/17/16	$	2,974,388	$	2,980,583
Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders—1.9%
AES Corp. (The) Term Loan 4.250%, 06/01/18		2,431,625		2,432,765
Calpine Corp. Term Loan 4.500%, 04/02/18		4,964,750		4,874,851
Covanta Energy Corp. Synthetic Letter of Credit 2.080%, 02/10/14		421,218		415,251
Term Loan 1.810%, 02/10/14		814,959		803,413
Dynegy Holdings, Inc. Term Loan 9.250%, 08/04/16		1,346,625		1,366,837
Invenergy LLC Term Loan 9.000%, 11/21/17		700,000		691,250
NRG Energy, Inc. Term Loan 4.000%, 07/02/18		4,129,250		4,126,669
				14,711,036
Industrial Conglomerates—0.3%
N.E.W Holdings I LLC Secured Term Loan 6.000%, 03/23/16		1,742,857		1,616,500
RGIS Holdings LLC Delayed Draw Term Loan 3.080%, 04/30/14		11,559		11,241
Term Loan 3.080%, 04/30/14		467,082		454,237
				2,081,978
Insurance—2.1%
Alliant Holdings I, Inc. Term Loan 3.580%, 08/21/14		2,093,029		2,042,447
AmWINS Group, Inc. First Lien Term Loan 4.740%, 06/08/13		991,239		966,458

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Senior Floating-Rate Interests (a)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount		Value
Insurance—(Continued)
Asurion Corp. First Lien Term Loan 5.500%, 05/24/18	$	5,202,273	$	5,137,244
Asurion LLC Second Lien Term Loan 9.000%, 05/24/19		1,050,000		1,039,500
CNO Financial Group, Inc. Term Loan 6.250%, 09/30/16		1,327,089		1,325,430
HUB International Holdings, Inc. Delayed Draw Term Loan 3.080%, 06/13/14		181,165		173,918
Term Loan 3.080%, 06/13/14		2,180,731		2,093,502
Sedgwick CMS Holdings, Inc. Term Loan 5.000%, 12/30/16		993,846		973,969
USI Holdings Corp. Term Loan 2.800%, 05/05/14		2,436,751		2,339,282
				16,091,750
Internet & Catalog Retail—0.7%
FTD, Inc. Term Loan 4.750%, 06/11/18		1,194,000		1,170,120
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. First Lien Term Loan 6.500%, 12/22/17		2,166,445		2,169,153
Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. Term Loan 3.390%, 07/25/14		1,919,483		1,648,700
				4,987,973
Internet Software & Services—2.4%
Ascend Learning Term Loan 7.000%, 12/06/16		1,212,755		1,185,468
Getty Images, Inc. Term Loan 5.250%, 11/07/16		4,167,928		4,181,820
Go Daddy Group, Inc. (The) Term Loan 7.000%, 12/17/18		1,396,500		1,382,535
Internet Software & Services—(Continued)
Sabre, Inc. Term Loan 2.330%, 09/30/14	$	7,456,561	$	6,179,625
Softlayer Technologies, Inc. Term Loan 7.250%, 11/05/16		420,750		421,539
Travelport LLC Extended Delayed Draw Term Loan 4.870%, 08/21/15		2,091,118		1,748,407
Extended Term Loan 4.870%, 08/21/15		1,765,636		1,476,268
Term Loan 5.080%, 08/21/15		181,324		151,607
Web.com Group, Inc. Term Loan 7.000%, 10/27/17		2,125,000		1,970,937
				18,698,206
IT Services—4.3%
Acxiom Corp. Extended Term Loan 3.480%, 03/15/15		675,744		674,054
Attachmate Corp. Term Loan 6.500%, 04/27/17		1,975,000		1,940,437
Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. Term Loan 4.000%, 08/03/17		322,563		322,966
Endurance International Group, Inc. (The) Term Loan 7.750%, 12/20/17		800,000		798,000
Fifth Third Processing Solutions LLC Term Loan 4.500%, 11/03/16		1,884,323		1,882,754
First Data Corp. Extended Term Loan 4.290%, 03/23/18		1,023,844		861,309
Term Loan 3.040%, 09/24/14		3,757,218		3,402,890
3.040%, 09/24/14		2,984,542		2,699,891
iPayment, Inc. Term Loan 5.750%, 05/08/17		4,205,833		4,150,632

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Senior Floating-Rate Interests (a)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount		Value
IT Services—(Continued)
Mercury Payment Systems Canada LLC Term Loan 6.500%, 07/03/17	$	621,875	$	621,875
NeuStar, Inc. Term Loan 5.000%, 11/08/18		922,687		924,994
SkillSoft Corp. Term Loan 6.500%, 05/26/17		489,193		490,416
6.500%, 05/26/17		249,375		249,998
SunGard Data Systems, Inc. Term Loan 2.030%, 02/28/14		5,407,838		5,283,906
4.000%, 02/26/16		3,907,838		3,817,469
Sunquest Information Systems, Inc. Term Loan 6.250%, 12/16/16		1,492,500		1,485,038
Syniverse Technologies, Inc. Term Loan 5.250%, 12/21/17		1,460,250		1,462,075
TASC, Inc. Term Loan 4.500%, 12/18/15		1,291,209		1,289,595
VeriFone, Inc. Term Loan 4.250%, 12/31/18		475,000		475,297
				32,833,596
Leisure Equipment & Products—1.0%
Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc. Term Loan 2.900%, 06/28/13		2,774,771		2,733,149
ClubCorp Operations, Inc. Term Loan 6.000%, 11/30/16		2,786,446		2,787,608
Fender Musical Instruments Corp. Term Loan 2.550%, 06/09/14		1,161,774		1,070,769
SRAM LLC Term Loan 4.760%, 06/07/18		1,193,590		1,199,558
				7,791,084
Life Sciences Tools & Services—1.4%
BakerCorp International, Inc. Term Loan 5.000%, 06/01/18	$	1,795,500	$	1,780,911
Education Management LLC Term Loan 2.380%, 06/03/13		2,445,809		2,315,570
Medpace, Inc. Term Loan 6.500%, 06/16/17		796,000		756,200
Pharmaceutical Product Development, Inc. Term Loan 6.250%, 12/05/18		1,875,000		1,865,625
Quintiles Transnational Corp. Term Loan 5.000%, 06/08/18		4,054,625		3,992,042
				10,710,348
Machinery—2.0%
Allison Transmission, Inc. Term Loan 2.780%, 08/07/14		6,120,623		5,989,464
Edwards (Cayman Islands II), Ltd. Term Loan 5.500%, 05/31/16		1,836,475		1,734,703
Husky Injection Molding Systems, Ltd. Term Loan 6.500%, 06/30/18		2,491,241		2,490,202
Manitowoc Co., Inc. (The) Term Loan 4.250%, 11/13/17		560,250		554,643
Rexnord Corp. Term Loan 2.560%, 07/19/13		2,703,761		2,659,825
Terex Corp. Term Loan 5.500%, 04/28/17		673,312		676,960
TriMas Corp. Term Loan 4.250%, 06/21/17		970,125		965,274
				15,071,071
Media—10.0%
Acosta, Inc. Term Loan 4.750%, 03/01/18		3,855,625		3,764,054

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Senior Floating-Rate Interests (a)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount		Value
Media—(Continued)
Advantage Sales & Marketing, Inc. Term Loan 5.250%, 12/18/17	$	4,187,712	$	4,124,897
AMC Entertainment, Inc. Extended Term Loan 3.550%, 12/16/16		3,926,893		3,852,039
AMC Networks, Inc. Term Loan 4.000%, 12/31/18		1,741,250		1,728,191
Atlantic Broadband Finance LLC Term Loan 4.000%, 03/08/16		787,845		774,714
BBHI Acquisition LLC Term Loan 4.500%, 12/14/17		1,311,750		1,300,683
Block Communications, Inc. Term Loan 2.300%, 12/21/12		1,105,939		1,096,262
Carmike Cinemas, Inc. Term Loan 5.500%, 01/27/16		1,686,394		1,677,119
Cengage Learning Acquisitions, Inc. Term Loan 2.550%, 07/03/14		1,969,165		1,686,097
Cequel Communications LLC Term Loan 2.270%, 11/05/13		3,454,663		3,422,545
Charter Communications Operating LLC Extended Term Loan 3.830%, 09/06/16		4,432,217		4,344,960
Cinemark U.S.A., Inc. Extended Term Loan 3.620%, 04/29/16		2,849,123		2,838,131
Crown Media Holdings, Inc. Term Loan 5.750%, 07/14/18		472,625		470,262
CSC Holdings, Inc. Extended Term Loan 2.040%, 03/29/16		2,259,750		2,210,600
Cumulus Media, Inc. Term Loan 5.750%, 09/17/18		4,925,000		4,831,632
Deluxe Entertainment Services Group, Inc. Term Loan 6.250%, 05/11/13		1,814,295		1,808,624
Media—(Continued)
Entercom Radio LLC Term Loan 6.270%, 11/23/18	$	550,000	$	550,917
Foxco Acquisition Sub LLC Term Loan 4.750%, 07/14/15		1,834,314		1,796,083
Insight Midwest Holdings LLC Term Loan 2.020%, 04/07/14		2,058,272		2,040,262
Instant Web, Inc. Delayed Draw Term Loan 3.670%, 08/07/14		114,447		108,153
Term Loan 3.670%, 08/07/14		1,097,894		1,037,510
Interactive Data Corp. Term Loan 4.500%, 02/12/18		1,558,597		1,545,609
Language Line LLC Term Loan 6.250%, 06/20/16		2,089,250		2,078,804
LIN Television Corp. Term Loan 5.000%, 12/21/18		550,000		547,937
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. Term Loan 4.500%, 11/07/16		2,439,112		2,430,960
LodgeNet Entertainment Corp. Term Loan 6.500%, 04/04/14		1,108,174		971,038
Mediacom Broadband LLC Term Loan 4.500%, 10/23/17		1,970,000		1,928,137
Mediacom Illinois LLC Term Loan 5.500%, 03/31/17		1,955,000		1,934,840
Mediacom LLC Term Loan 4.500%, 10/23/17		493,734		479,745
National CineMedia LLC Term Loan 2.050%, 02/13/15		2,579,310		2,494,678
Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. Term Loan 5.000%, 09/30/16		496,234		494,994
Raycom TV Broadcasting, Inc. Term Loan 4.500%, 05/31/17		820,875		788,040

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Senior Floating-Rate Interests (a)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount		Value
Media—(Continued)
Regal Cinemas, Inc. Term Loan 3.580%, 08/23/17	$	2,549,250	$	2,532,787
Sinclair Television Group, Inc. Incremental Term Loan 0.000%, 12/15/16 (b)(c)		700,000		699,982
Univision Communications, Inc. Extended Term Loan 4.550%, 03/31/17		5,570,711		4,987,530
Term Loan 2.300%, 09/29/14		1,092,685		1,046,094
UPC Financing Partnership Term Loan 3.870%, 12/30/16		728,489		704,813
3.770%, 12/29/17		3,300,000		3,188,625
4.750%, 12/29/17		375,000		369,141
Zuffa LLC Term Loan 2.310%, 06/19/15		1,669,409		1,602,111
				76,289,600
Metals & Mining—1.1%
JMC Steel Group Term Loan 4.750%, 04/03/17		1,513,563		1,503,157
Noranda Aluminum Acquisition Corp. Term Loan 2.050%, 05/16/14		428,115		423,834
Novelis, Inc. Incremental Term Loan 3.750%, 03/10/17		623,438		614,398
Term Loan 3.750%, 03/10/17		1,831,500		1,804,943
SunCoke Energy, Inc. Term Loan 4.000%, 07/26/18		472,625		466,717
Walter Energy, Inc. Term Loan 4.000%, 04/02/18		3,547,166		3,525,366
				8,338,415
Multiline Retail—0.6%
99 Cents Only Stores Term Loan 0.000%, 12/28/18 (b)(c)		475,000		470,844
Multiline Retail—(Continued)
Dollar General Corp. Term Loan 3.120%, 07/07/14	$	3,000,000	$	3,000,378
Savers, Inc. Term Loan 4.250%, 03/03/17		836,804		828,087
				4,299,309
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—1.5%
Buffalo Gulf Coast Terminals LLC Term Loan 7.500%, 10/31/17		523,688		526,306
Citgo Petroleum Corp. Term Loan 8.000%, 06/24/15		123,750		124,245
9.000%, 06/23/17		1,576,000		1,606,732
Gibson Energy Term Loan 5.750%, 06/15/18		1,940,250		1,943,484
MEG Energy Corp. Term Loan 4.000%, 03/16/18		1,920,188		1,918,987
Obsidian Natural Gas Trust Term Loan 7.000%, 11/02/15		3,401,782		3,397,530
Oxbow Carbon and Mineral Holdings LLC Extended Term Loan 3.930%, 05/08/16		1,749,641		1,704,443
				11,221,727
Personal Products—0.6%
NBTY, Inc. Term Loan 4.250%, 10/02/17		4,565,571		4,527,905
Pharmaceuticals—0.9%
Aptalis Pharma, Inc. Term Loan 5.500%, 02/10/17		1,287,000		1,267,695
Capsugel Healthcare, Ltd. Term Loan 5.250%, 08/01/18		1,221,937		1,225,603
Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings, Inc. Term Loan 4.000%, 06/18/18		892,152		893,713

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Senior Floating-Rate Interests (a)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount		Value
Pharmaceuticals—(Continued)
Warner Chilcott Co. LLC Term Loan 3.750%, 03/17/16	$	694,000	$	690,204
4.250%, 03/15/18		2,484,086		2,457,693
				6,534,908
Real Estate Management & Development—1.3%
CB Richard Ellis Services, Inc. Term Loan 3.550%, 03/05/18		498,921		488,528
3.780%, 09/04/19		3,456,204		3,384,201
Fidelity National Information Solutions, Inc. 4.250%, 07/18/16		1,377,730		1,380,823
RE/MAX International, Inc. Term Loan 5.500%, 04/15/16		1,831,665		1,831,665
Realogy Corp. Delayed Draw Term Loan 3.440%, 10/10/13		2,977,444		2,776,466
				9,861,683
Road & Rail—0.6%
Hertz Corp. (The) Term Loan 3.750%, 03/09/18		2,580,500		2,539,104
Swift Transportation Co., Inc. Term Loan 6.000%, 12/21/16		2,248,646		2,256,140
				4,795,244
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—1.3%
Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. Extended Term Loan 4.520%, 12/01/16		5,342,321		5,155,340
Microsemi Corp. 5.750%, 02/02/18		1,521,188		1,524,990
NXP B.V. Term Loan 4.500%, 03/03/17		1,985,000		1,893,194
5.500%, 03/03/17		997,500		951,366
Spansion, Inc. Term Loan 4.750%, 02/09/15		553,801		549,647
				10,074,537
Software—3.2%
Applied Systems, Inc. First Lien Term Loan 5.500%, 12/08/16	$	915,750	$	898,007
Aspect Software, Inc. Term Loan 6.250%, 05/06/16		2,464,899		2,455,594
CCC Information Services, Inc. Term Loan 5.500%, 11/11/15		940,500		940,892
Cinedigm Digital Funding I LLC Term Loan 5.250%, 04/29/16		1,758,978		1,697,413
Datatel, Inc. Term Loan 0.000%, 07/13/18 (b)(c)		1,325,000		1,327,484
Infor Enterprise Solutions Holdings, Inc. Extended Delayed Draw Term Loan 6.050%, 07/28/15		1,031,681		980,096
Extended Dollar Term Loan 5.050%, 07/28/15		2,395,232		2,203,614
Extended Term Loan 6.050%, 07/28/15		3,343,259		3,146,843
Kronos, Inc. Extended Term Loan 5.330%, 06/09/17		1,491,804		1,458,238
Incremental Term Loan 0.000%, 12/21/17 (b)(c)		775,000		757,563
Mitchell International, Inc. First Lien Term Loan 2.630%, 03/28/14		2,155,480		2,059,383
SafeNet, Inc. Term Loan 2.800%, 04/12/14		3,000,000		2,887,500
Serena Software, Inc. Extended Term Loan 4.540%, 03/10/16		1,700,000		1,607,563
SymphonyIRI Group, Inc. Term Loan 5.000%, 12/01/17		796,000		788,538
Vertafore, Inc. Term Loan 5.250%, 07/29/16		1,065,494		1,043,296
				24,252,024

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Senior Floating-Rate Interests (a)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount		Value
Specialty Retail—3.0%
1-800 Contacts, Inc. Term Loan 7.700%, 03/04/15	$	897,062	$	892,576
AMSCAN Holdings, Inc. Term Loan 6.750%, 12/04/17		3,478,674		3,467,804
General Nutrition Centers, Inc. Term Loan 4.250%, 03/02/18		4,026,555		3,986,289
Jo-Ann Stores, Inc. Term Loan 4.750%, 03/16/18		2,363,125		2,274,508
Michaels Stores, Inc. Extended Term Loan 5.020%, 07/29/16		2,814,411		2,769,558
Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (The) Term Loan 4.750%, 05/16/18		3,050,000		2,950,241
Pep Boys-Manny, Moe & Jack (The) Term Loan 2.530%, 10/28/13		1,444,251		1,417,171
PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc. Term Loan 4.500%, 11/24/17		3,777,000		3,691,005
Pilot Travel Centers LLC Term Loan 4.250%, 03/30/18		1,335,632		1,336,258
				22,785,410
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—0.8%
J. Crew Operating Corp. Term Loan 4.750%, 03/07/18		3,706,375		3,491,405
Phillips-Van Heusen Corp. Term Loan 3.500%, 05/06/16		347,109		348,122
Visant Holding Corp. Term Loan 5.260%, 12/22/16		1,886,120		1,772,953
Warnaco, Inc. Term Loan 3.750%, 06/15/18		447,750		445,511
				6,057,991
Trading Companies & Distributors—0.2%
Beacon Sales Acquisition, Inc. Term Loan 2.350%, 09/30/13	$	1,499,294	$	1,458,063
Wesco Aircraft Hardware Corp. Term Loan 4.250%, 04/07/17		280,610		280,844
				1,738,907
Wireless Telecommunication Services—1.2%
Cellular South, Inc. Term Loan 4.500%, 07/27/17		796,000		792,020
MetroPCS Wireless, Inc. Term Loan 4.130%, 11/03/16		2,177,333		2,137,416
4.060%, 03/16/18		5,454,932		5,318,559
SBA Finance Term Loan 3.750%, 06/29/18		870,625		866,816
				9,114,811
Total Senior Floating-Rate Interests (Cost $753,727,155)				740,466,123
Short-Term Investment—2.9%
Repurchase Agreement—2.9%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $21,901,024 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $22,370,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. at 0.625% due 12/23/13 with a value of $22,342,038.		21,901,000		21,901,000
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $21,901,000)				21,901,000
Total Investments—100.0% (Cost $775,628,155#)				762,367,123
Less Unfunded Loan Commitments—(0.1)% (Cost $(114,100))				(114,100	)
Net Investments—99.9% (Cost $775,514,055)				762,253,023
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—0.1%				419,008
Net Assets—100.0%			$	762,672,031

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $775,514,055. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $2,215,841 and $(15,476,873), respectively, resulting in net unrealized depreciation of $(13,261,032) for federal income tax purposes.

(a) Senior floating-rate interests (Senior Loans) often require prepayments from excess cash flows or permit the borrowers to repay at their election. The degree to which borrowers repay, whether as a contractual requirement or at their election, cannot be predicted with accuracy. As a result, the actual remaining maturity may be substantially less than the stated maturities shown. However, Senior Loans will have an expected average life of approximately two to four years. The stated interest rate represents the weighted average interest rate of all contracts within the senior loan facility and includes commitment fees on unfunded loan commitments, if any. Senior Loans typically have rates of interest which are determined either daily, monthly, quarterly or semi-annually by reference to a base lending rate, plus a premium. These base rates are primarily the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) and secondarily, the prime rate offered by one or more major United States banks (the “Prime Rate”) and the certificate of deposit (“CD”) rate or other base lending rates used by commercial lenders.

(b) This Senior Loan will settle after December 31, 2011, at which time the interest rate will be determined.

(c) Unfunded or partially unfunded loan commitments. The Portfolio may enter into certain credit agreements all or a portion of which may be unfunded. The Portfolio is obligated to fund these commitments at the borrower’s discretion.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Total Senior Floating-Rate Interests*	$	—	$	740,466,123	$	—	$	740,466,123
Total Short-Term Investments*		—		21,901,000		—		21,901,000
Total Investments	$	—	$	762,367,123	$	—	$	762,367,123

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

Following is a reconciliation of Level 3 assets for which significant unobservable inputs were used to determine fair value:

Investments in Securities	Balance as of December 31, 2010		Accrued Discount/ Premiums		Realized Gain		Change in Unrealized Depreciation			Sales			Balance as of December 31, 2011		Change in Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation) for Investments Held at December 31, 2011
Senior Floating-Rate Interest
Broadcast Media	$	4,125,716	$	832	$	82,351	$	(75,950	)	$	(4,132,949	)	$	—	$	—
Radio and TV Broadcasting		2,225,237		345		28,413		(15,702	)		(2,238,293	)		—		—
Total	$	6,350,953	$	1,177	$	110,764	$	(91,652	)	$	(6,371,242	)	$	—	$	—

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)(b)	$	740,352,023
Repurchase Agreement		21,901,000
Cash		6,446,831
Receivable for investments sold		4,109,181
Receivable for shares sold		231,350
Interest receivable		2,006,981
Total assets		775,047,366
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		11,683,565
Shares redeemed		218,671
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		389,001
Distribution and service fees - Class B		12,101
Administration fees		3,374
Custodian and accounting fees		25,509
Deferred trustees’ fees		14,498
Other expenses		28,616
Total liabilities		12,375,335
Net Assets	$	762,672,031
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	745,060,131
Accumulated net realized gain		2,305,327
Unrealized depreciation on investments		(13,261,032	)
Undistributed net investment income		28,567,605
Net Assets	$	762,672,031
Net Assets
Class A	$	706,232,170
Class B		56,439,861
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		68,321,978
Class B		5,482,327
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	10.34
Class B		10.29

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreement, was $753,613,055.

(b) Investments at value includes unfunded loan commitments.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Interest	$	33,429,522
Total investment income		33,429,522
Expenses
Management fees		4,226,553
Administration fees		37,209
Custodian and accounting fees		274,842
Distribution and service fees - Class B		123,938
Audit and tax services		92,906
Legal		33,657
Trustees’ fees and expenses		34,610
Shareholder reporting		22,505
Insurance		5,623
Miscellaneous		4,068
Total expenses		4,855,911
Net investment income		28,573,611
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments
Net realized gain on investments		2,307,614
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments		(17,143,741	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments		(14,836,127	)
Net Increase in Net Assets from Operations	$	13,737,484

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Period Ended December 31, 2010 (a)
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	28,573,611		$	12,458,198
Net realized gain on investments		2,307,614			1,617,177
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments		(17,143,741	)		3,882,709
Net increase in net assets resulting from operations		13,737,484			17,958,084
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(11,472,961	)		—
Class B		(992,770	)		—
From net realized capital gains
Class A		(1,488,936	)		—
Class B		(130,528	)		—
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(14,085,195	)		—
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		206,779,682			538,281,976
Net Increase in Net Assets		206,431,971			556,240,060
Net assets at beginning of period		556,240,060			—
Net assets at end of period	$	762,672,031		$	556,240,060
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	28,567,605		$	12,459,725

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Period Ended December 31, 2010 (a)
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		22,874,620		$	235,678,555			52,811,731		$	528,305,213
Reinvestments		1,257,216			12,961,897			—			—
Redemptions		(7,652,757	)		(78,781,221	)		(968,832	)		(9,684,486	)
Net increase		16,479,079		$	169,859,231			51,842,899		$	518,620,727
Class B
Sales		5,767,456		$	59,667,370			2,128,206		$	21,422,182
Reinvestments		109,164			1,123,298			—			—
Redemptions		(2,346,404	)		(23,870,217	)		(176,095	)		(1,760,933	)
Net increase		3,530,216		$	36,920,451			1,952,111		$	19,661,249
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	206,779,682					$	538,281,976

(a) Commencement of operations was 4/30/2010.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.34		$	10.00
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.42			0.25
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.18	)		0.09
Total from investment operations		0.24			0.34
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.21	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.03	)		0.00
Total distributions		(0.24	)		0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.34		$	10.34
Total Return (%)		2.33			3.40
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.68			0.69	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)		0.68			0.69	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		4.10			3.71	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		39.8			30.7
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	706.2		$	536.1

Selected per share data
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.32		$	10.00
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.40			0.25
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.19	)		0.07
Total from investment operations		0.21			0.32
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.21	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.03	)		0.00
Total distributions		(0.24	)		0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.29		$	10.32
Total Return (%)		2.01			3.20
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.93			0.94	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)		0.93			0.94	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		3.86			3.73	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		39.8			30.7
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	56.4		$	20.2

* Annualized

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Commencement of operations was 4/30/2010.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A and B Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service for three fiscal years after the returns are filed.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to deferred trustees’ compensation, losses deferred due to wash sales and non-deductible 12b-1 fees, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

25

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Loan Participations - The Portfolio may invest in loans arranged through private negotiation between one or more financial institutions. The Portfolio’s investment in any such loan may be in the form of a participation in or an assignment of the loan. In connection with purchasing participations or an assignment, the Portfolio generally will have no right to enforce compliance by the borrower with the terms of the loan agreement relating to the loan, nor any rights of set-off against the borrower and the Portfolio may not benefit directly from any collateral supporting the loan in which it has purchased the participation or assignment.

Unfunded Loan Commitments - The Portfolio may enter into certain credit agreements all or a portion of which may be unfunded. The Portfolio is obligated to fund these commitments at the borrower’s discretion. These commitments, if any, are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments. As of December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had open unfunded loan commitments of $114,100.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with Eaton Vance Management (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year ended December 31, 2011	% per annum	Average Daily Net Assets
$4,226,553	0.625%	First $100 Million
	0.60%	Over $100 Million

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Expense Limitation Agreement - The Adviser had entered into an expense limitation agreement with the Trust (“Expense Limitation Agreement”) in the interest of limiting expenses of the Portfolio. The Expense Limitation Agreement continued in effect with respect to the Portfolio until April 30, 2011. Pursuant to that Expense Limitation Agreement, the Adviser had agreed to waive or limit its fees and to assume other expenses so that the total annual operating expenses of the Portfolio other than interest, taxes, brokerage commissions, other expenditures which were capitalized or expensed in accordance with GAAP, other extraordinary expenses not incurred in the ordinary course of the Portfolio’s business and acquired fund fees and expenses but including amounts payable pursuant to a plan adopted in accordance with Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act, were limited to the following expense ratios as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets:

Maximum Expense Ratio under current         Expense  Limitation Agreement
Class A	Class B
0.80%		1.05	%

If in any year in which the Management Agreement is still in effect, the estimated aggregate operating expenses of the Portfolio for the fiscal year are less than the Maximum Expense Ratios for that year, subject to approval by the Trust’s Board, the Adviser shall be entitled to reimbursement by the Portfolio to the extent that the charge does not cause the expenses in such subsequent year to exceed the Maximum Expense Ratios as stated above. The Portfolio is not obligated to repay any expense paid by the Adviser more than five years after the end of the fiscal year in which such expense was incurred.

Effective May 1, 2011, there was no longer an expense cap for the Portfolio.

26

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Distribution Agreement and Plan - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A and Class B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B distribution plan provides that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% of the average net daily assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B Shares. However, under the Class B distribution agreement, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B distribution plan are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B distribution plan and distribution agreement, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government
$—	$	495,694,811	$—	$	269,579,638

5. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

27

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

7. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the period ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$14,085,195	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	14,085,195	$	—

There were no distributions paid for the year ending December 31, 2010.

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain	Net Unrealized Depreciation	Loss Carryforwards	Total
$30,068,912	$818,518	$(13,261,032)	$—	$17,626,398

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses. At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not have any capital loss carryforwards.

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

28

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”), as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for the year then ended, and for the period from April 30, 2010 (commencement of operations) to December 31, 2010, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian, agent banks and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for the year then ended, and for the period from April 30, 2010 (commencement of operations) to December 31, 2010, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 28, 2012

29

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

30

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

31

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

32

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

33

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and underperformed its Lipper Index for the one- year period ended June 30, 2011. The Board further considered that the Portfolio outperformed its benchmark, the S&P/LSTA Leveraged Loan Index, for the one- year period ended September 30, 2011. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance, including the impact of current market conditions, and the peer groups in which the Portfolio was placed in the Lipper Report. The Board also noted that the Portfolio commenced operations on April 29, 2010. Based on its review and taking into account the fact that the Portfolio had only recently commenced operations, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s performance was satisfactory.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to

34

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees were above the Expense Group median and Expense Universe median and below the Sub-advised Expense Universe median, and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were above the Expense Group median and below the Expense Universe median and Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were above the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were above the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s expenses. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the

35

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

With respect to the Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board further considered that the Portfolio’s management fees were above the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

36

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust Met/Franklin Income Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Income Portfolio

Managed by Franklin Advisers, Inc.

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A and B shares of the Met/Franklin Income Portfolio returned 2.38% and 2.13%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmarks, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index¹ and the S&P 500 Index², returned 7.84% and 2.11%, respectively. A blend of the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index (50%) and the S&P 500 Index (50%), returned 5.28%.

Market Environment/Conditions

During the 12 months under review, domestic equity markets reacted to developments regarding the European debt crisis, debate over raising the United States (“U.S.”) debt ceiling, stubborn U.S. unemployment, geopolitical factors surrounding populist uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, and the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan. Overall, U.S. stock markets made a small gain for the year with wide variations among sectors. In fixed income markets, U.S. Treasury prices rose as they benefited from investors’ search for perceived safety.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

Continued investor uncertainty regarding regulatory reform, increased regulation and mortgage market weakness impacted Portfolio performance during the 12 months under review. The Portfolio outperformed its equity benchmark, but lagged its fixed income benchmark.

Within fixed income, key individual contributors included financing solutions specialist CIT Group, oil and natural gas producer Chesapeake Energy and hospital operator HCA. Major fixed income detractors included electricity provider Texas Competitive Electric Holdings, petroleum refiner Petroplus Finance (Bermuda) and American Airlines’ parent AMR.

Within equity, the Utilities, Health Care and Energy sectors contributed to performance, and select holdings in Financials and Materials detracted from results. Utilities holdings including The Southern Co., Progress Energy, Duke Energy and Dominion Resources generated strong gains during the period. Many Utilities holdings benefited from stable and regulated operations, limited exposure to foreign economies and high dividend yields. Although our Utilities exposure declined modestly following some profit-taking, the sector remained the Portfolio’s largest sector weighting with PG&E Corp. among the largest holdings. Top Health Care contributors included major pharmaceutical companies Roche Holding (Switzerland), Pfizer and Merck & Co., which benefited from stable operations, continued strong free cash flow generation and high dividend yields. Oil and gas producer Exxon Mobil in the Energy sector was another notable equity contributor. Within convertible securities, we maintained positions in select Financials holdings including Wells Fargo & Co. and Bank of America.

Financial stocks generally were hurt by concerns about the European sovereign debt crisis. Notable equity detractors among Financials included Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and HSBC Holdings (United Kingdom). Cemex (Mexico) in the Materials sector lost value due to weak demand for construction materials.

The Portfolio’s allocations to equity and fixed income did not change significantly for the year. However, within fixed income, our Communications and Technology allocations rose while Consumer Non-Cyclical and Finance Companies declined. Among stock allocations, Health Care increased while Utilities and Energy decreased.

We largely focused on corporate bonds within fixed income during the period, given the potential for higher yields and long-term total return relative to other fixed income securities. We maintained significant diversification with holdings across a range of sectors including Consumer Non-Cyclicals, Financials and Technology. While sector diversification remains important, we emphasize bottom-up fundamental research to identify what we believe are the most attractive investment opportunities to help us meet the Portfolio’s objective.

The Portfolio’s equity exposure continued to focus on dividend-paying common stocks and convertible securities. We continued to seek what we considered attractive current yield as well as those companies with potential favorable outlooks for dividend growth. Convertible securities remained attractive to us given the possible opportunity for both high current income and the potential to participate in the appreciation of the underlying common stock. At period-end, we had limited holdings in other equity securities including preferred stocks and warrants. We remain largely focused on U.S. securities.

Edward Perks, CFA

Charles B. Johnson

Alex W. Peters, CFA

Matthew Quinlan

Franklin Advisers, Inc.

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Income Portfolio

Managed by Franklin Advisers, Inc.

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
CIT Group, Inc.		3.8
First Data Corp.		3.1
Texas Competitive Electric Holding Co. LLC/TECH Finance, Inc.		2.7
Wells Fargo & Co.		2.2
JPMorgan Chase & Co.		2.0
HCA, Inc.		2.0
Dynegy Holdings, Inc.		2.0
Merck & Co., Inc.		1.9
Roche Holding AG		1.8
Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.		1.7

Top Equity Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Utilities		10.2
Financials		9.1
Non-Cyclical		7.2
Energy		6.8
Communications		3.3

Top Fixed Income Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities		38.0
Cash & Cash Equivalents		8.7
Loan Participation		6.2
Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities		4.7
Convertible Bonds		0.6

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Income Portfolio

Met/Franklin Income Portfolio managed by

Franklin Advisers, Inc. vs. Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index¹and

S&P 500 Index²

	Average Annual Return3 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		Since Inception4
Met/Franklin Income Portfolio—Class A		2.38%		4.79%
Class B		2.13%		4.53%
Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index1		7.84%		6.63%
S&P 500 Index2		2.11%		-0.62%

The performance of Class B shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other class of shares because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹The Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index is a broad-based benchmark that measures the investment grade, U.S. dollar-denominated, fixed-rate taxable bond market, including Treasuries, government-related and corporate securities, mortgage-backed securities, asset-backed securities, and commercial mortgage-backed securities.

² The Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Composite Stock Price Index is an unmanaged index representing the performance of 500 major companies, most of which are listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

³“Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gains distributions.

⁴Inception of Class A and Class B shares is 4/28/2008. Index returns are based on an inception date of 4/28/2008.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The indexes do not include fees or expenses and are not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Income Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A(a)
Actual		0.75%	$	1,000.00	$	974.20	$	3.73
Hypothetical*		0.75%		1,000.00		1,021.42		3.82
Class B(a)
Actual		1.00%	$	1,000.00	$	973.10	$	4.97
Hypothetical*		1.00%		1,000.00		1,020.16		5.09

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

(a) The annualized expense ratio reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 3 to the Financial Statements.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—37.4% of Net Assets

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Airlines—0.3%
American Airlines, Inc. 7.500%, 03/15/16 (144A) (a)		1,700,000	$	1,224,000
Auto Components—0.2%
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (The) 8.250%, 08/15/20 (b)		600,000		657,000
Automobiles—0.4%
Chrysler Group LLC 8.250%, 06/15/21 (144A) (b)		1,700,000		1,555,500
Biotechnology—0.1%
Grifols, Inc. 8.250%, 02/01/18		400,000		422,000
Building Products—0.2%
Building Materials Corp. of America 6.750%, 05/01/21 (144A)		800,000		842,000
Chemicals—0.2%
Hexion US Finance Corp./Hexion Nova Scotia Finance ULC 8.875%, 02/01/18		900,000		848,250
Commercial Banks—3.6%
CIT Group, Inc. 7.000%, 05/04/15 (144A)		2,400,000		2,406,000
7.000%, 05/02/16 (144A)		8,600,000		8,610,750
7.000%, 05/02/17 (144A)		3,785,000		3,785,000
				14,801,750
Commercial Services & Supplies—0.2%
United Rentals North America, Inc. 8.375%, 09/15/20 (b)		900,000		882,000
Communications Equipment—0.1%
CommScope, Inc. 8.250%, 01/15/19 (144A)		300,000		301,500
Construction Materials—0.2%
Vulcan Materials Co. 7.500%, 06/15/21		700,000		759,500
Consumer Finance—0.6%
Ally Financial, Inc. 6.250%, 12/01/17		500,000		484,175
8.000%, 03/15/20		1,000,000		1,027,500
Ford Motor Credit Co. LLC 12.000%, 05/15/15		800,000		985,992
				2,497,667
Containers & Packaging—1.0%
Berry Plastics Corp. 9.750%, 01/15/21 (b)		250,000	$	250,625
Reynolds Group Issuer, Inc./Reynolds Group Issuer LLC 7.875%, 08/15/19 (144A)		1,200,000		1,260,000
9.875%, 08/15/19 (144A)		800,000		780,000
8.250%, 02/15/21 (144A)		1,150,000		1,023,500
Sealed Air Corp. 8.125%, 09/15/19 (144A)		500,000		550,000
8.375%, 09/15/21 (144A) (b)		200,000		222,000
				4,086,125
Diversified Financial Services—1.3%
Antero Resources Finance Corp. 9.375%, 12/01/17		700,000		759,500
7.250%, 08/01/19 (144A)		1,000,000		1,030,000
CDW LLC/CDW Finance Corp. 11.000%, 10/12/15 (b)		88,000		92,840
12.535%, 10/12/17		500,000		505,000
8.500%, 04/01/19		2,900,000		2,936,250
				5,323,590
Diversified Telecommunication Services—0.1%
Frontier Communications Corp. 8.500%, 04/15/20 (b)		400,000		411,500
Electric Utilities—1.1%
Texas Competitive Electric Holdings Co. LLC/TCEH Finance, Inc. 10.250%, 11/01/15		9,500,000		3,420,000
10.500%, 11/01/16 (b) (c)		62,754		22,748
11.500%, 10/01/20 (144A)		700,000		597,625
15.000%, 04/01/21 (b)		1,255,000		696,525
				4,736,898
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—0.3%
Sanmina-SCI Corp. 7.000%, 05/15/19 (144A)		1,000,000		980,000
Sterling Merger, Inc. 11.000%, 10/01/19 (144A) (b)		400,000		392,000
				1,372,000
Energy Equipment & Services—0.5%
Cie Generale de Geophysique—Veritas 6.500%, 06/01/21		1,000,000		975,000
Green Field Energy Services, Inc. 13.000%, 11/15/16 (144A)		500,000		487,500

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Energy Equipment & Services—(Continued)
SESI LLC 6.875%, 06/01/14 (b)		790,000	$	797,900
				2,260,400
Food & Staples Retailing—0.3%
SUPERVALU, Inc. 8.000%, 05/01/16 (b)		1,000,000		1,037,500
Food Products—0.4%
Dean Foods Co. 9.750%, 12/15/18 (b)		1,000,000		1,070,000
JBS USA LLC/JBS USA Finance, Inc. 11.625%, 05/01/14		560,000		636,300
				1,706,300
Health Care Equipment & Supplies —0.1%
Kinetic Concepts, Inc. 10.500%, 11/01/18 (144A)		400,000		393,000
Health Care Providers & Services—3.9%
Community Health Systems, Inc. 8.875%, 07/15/15 (b)		422,000		436,770
HCA, Inc. 6.375%, 01/15/15		750,000		767,813
8.500%, 04/15/19		600,000		660,000
6.500%, 02/15/20		2,600,000		2,704,000
7.875%, 02/15/20		1,400,000		1,519,000
7.500%, 02/15/22 (b)		2,600,000		2,665,000
Health Management Associates, Inc. 7.375%, 01/15/20 (144A)		200,000		208,500
Tenet Healthcare Corp. 9.250%, 02/01/15 (b)		3,900,000		4,119,375
8.000%, 08/01/20 (b)		1,400,000		1,408,750
Vanguard Health Holding Co. II LLC/Vanguard Holding Co. II, Inc. 8.000%, 02/01/18		1,200,000		1,197,000
7.750%, 02/01/19 (b)		500,000		482,500
Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. 8.306%, 02/01/16 (d)		17,000		10,710
				16,179,418
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—1.4%
Caesars Entertainment Operating Co., Inc. 11.250%, 06/01/17		1,000,000		1,066,250
CityCenter Holdings LLC/CityCenter Finance Corp. 7.625%, 01/15/16 (144A)		400,000		412,000
10.750%, 01/15/17 (144A) (b) (c)		1,266,700		1,312,618
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—(Continued)
ClubCorp Club Operations, Inc. 10.000%, 12/01/18		1,500,000	$	1,447,500
MGM Resorts International 6.750%, 04/01/13 (b)		200,000		202,250
10.000%, 11/01/16 (b)		1,500,000		1,582,500
				6,023,118
Household Durables—0.1%
KB Home 6.250%, 06/15/15		400,000		370,000
Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders—2.0%
Calpine Corp. 7.250%, 10/15/17 (144A)		1,000,000		1,055,000
7.875%, 07/31/20 (144A)		600,000		649,500
7.500%, 02/15/21 (144A)		1,000,000		1,075,000
7.875%, 01/15/23 (144A)		1,000,000		1,080,000
Dynegy Holdings, Inc. 8.375%, 05/01/16 (a)		1,430,000		958,100
7.500%, 06/01/15 (a)		2,500,000		1,662,500
7.750%, 06/01/19 (a)		782,000		516,120
GenOn Energy, Inc. 7.875%, 06/15/17 (b)		1,300,000		1,261,000
				8,257,220
IT Services—2.9%
First Data Corp. 9.875%, 09/24/15 (b)		161,000		152,145
10.550%, 09/24/15		1,750,000		1,677,813
11.250%, 03/31/16 (b)		2,900,000		2,421,500
3.044%, 01/15/21		3,222,000		2,819,250
8.250%, 01/15/21 (144A) (b)		3,465,000		3,118,500
8.750%, 01/15/22 (144A) (c)		1,217,000		1,052,705
SunGard Data Systems, Inc. 7.625%, 11/15/20 (b)		1,000,000		1,032,500
				12,274,413
Machinery—1.1%
Manitowoc Co., Inc. (The) 9.500%, 02/15/18		800,000		856,000
RBS Global, Inc./Rexnord Corp. 11.750%, 08/01/16 (b)		500,000		527,500
8.500%, 05/01/18		2,200,000		2,343,000
Terex Corp. 8.000%, 11/15/17 (b)		1,000,000		985,000
				4,711,500

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Media—4.0%
Cablevision Systems Corp. 7.750%, 04/15/18		1,000,000	$	1,065,000
8.000%, 04/15/20 (b)		1,000,000		1,077,500
CCH II LLC/CCH II Capital Corp. 13.500%, 11/30/16		1,466,756		1,701,437
CCO Holdings LLC/CCO Holdings Capital Corp. 7.375%, 06/01/20 (b)		2,000,000		2,120,000
6.500%, 04/30/21		1,000,000		1,017,500
Cequel Communications Holdings I LLC/Cequel Capital Corp. 8.625%, 11/15/17 (144A)		1,200,000		1,278,000
Clear Channel Communications, Inc. 9.000%, 03/01/21		4,000,000		3,390,000
Clear Channel Worldwide Holdings, Inc. Series B 9.250%, 12/15/17		600,000		651,000
CSC Holdings LLC 6.750%, 11/15/21 (144A)		4,000,000		4,230,000
Dex One Corp. 12.000%, 01/29/17 (c)		461,677		105,031
				16,635,468
Metals & Mining—0.2%
Dynacast International LLC/Dynacast Finance, Inc. 9.250%, 07/15/19 (144A)		1,000,000		945,000
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—6.0%
Arch Coal, Inc. 7.250%, 06/15/21 (144A)		2,200,000		2,271,500
ATP Oil & Gas Corp. 11.875%, 05/01/15 (b)		1,000,000		662,500
Chesapeake Energy Corp. 9.500%, 02/15/15		500,000		575,000
6.875%, 08/15/18		700,000		752,500
7.250%, 12/15/18		2,000,000		2,220,000
6.875%, 11/15/20 (b)		885,000		951,375
CONSOL Energy, Inc. 8.250%, 04/01/20		700,000		777,000
Energy Transfer Equity L.P. 7.500%, 10/15/20		700,000		768,250
Energy XXI Gulf Coast, Inc. 9.250%, 12/15/17		1,000,000		1,090,000
EXCO Resources, Inc. 7.500%, 09/15/18		1,400,000		1,330,000
Forest Oil Corp. 7.250%, 06/15/19		532,000		545,300
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—(Continued)
Linn Energy LLC/Linn Energy Finance Corp. 8.625%, 04/15/20		1,300,000	$	1,417,000
Niska Gas Storage US LLC/Niska Gas Storage Canada ULC 8.875%, 03/15/18		1,000,000		982,500
Peabody Energy Corp. 6.250%, 11/15/21 (144A)		1,000,000		1,040,000
Plains Exploration & Production Co. 6.750%, 02/01/22		2,400,000		2,526,000
Sabine Pass LNG L.P. 7.250%, 11/30/13		150,000		152,250
SandRidge Energy, Inc. 4.206%, 04/01/14 (e)		1,375,000		1,337,117
9.875%, 05/15/16 (144A) (b)		200,000		215,000
8.000%, 06/01/18 (144A)		1,290,000		1,309,350
7.500%, 03/15/21		2,200,000		2,194,500
W&T Offshore, Inc. 8.500%, 06/15/19 (144A)		800,000		832,000
Western Refining, Inc. 11.250%, 06/15/17 (144A)		1,000,000		1,142,500
				25,091,642
Pharmaceuticals—0.2%
Mylan, Inc. 6.000%, 11/15/18 (144A)		700,000		723,625
Real Estate Investment Trusts—0.1%
Host Hotels & Resorts L.P. 9.000%, 05/15/17 (b)		200,000		218,500
iStar Financial, Inc. 8.625%, 06/01/13		350,000		327,250
				545,750
Road & Rail—0.3%
Hertz Corp. (The) 8.875%, 01/01/14 (b)		1,027,000		1,037,270
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—1.8%
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 8.125%, 12/15/17		400,000		417,000
Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. 10.125%, 12/15/16 (b)		401,000		424,058
10.125%, 03/15/18 (144A) (b)		2,122,000		2,323,590
8.050%, 02/01/20		1,200,000		1,134,000
10.750%, 08/01/20 (b)		3,016,000		3,159,260
				7,457,908

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares/Par Amount($)†		Value
Specialty Retail—0.3%
Academy, Ltd./Academy Finance Corp. 9.250%, 08/01/19 (144A) (b)		1,400,000	$	1,389,500
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—0.3%
Visant Corp. 10.000%, 10/01/17		1,400,000		1,288,000
Wireless Telecommunication Services—1.6%
Cricket Communications, Inc. 7.750%, 10/15/20 (b)		2,500,000		2,193,750
Sprint Nextel Corp. 9.000%, 11/15/18 (144A)		2,500,000		2,631,250
11.500%, 11/15/21 (144A)		2,000,000		1,985,000
				6,810,000
Total Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities (Cost $155,957,657)				155,858,312
Common Stocks—35.7%
Aerospace & Defense—0.3%
Boeing Co. (The)		17,050		1,250,618
Automobiles—0.0%
Escrow GM Corp. Senior		15,000		0
General Motors Co.* (b)		1,527		30,952
				30,952
Beverages—0.9%
Diageo plc		60,000		1,309,719
PepsiCo, Inc.		36,260		2,405,851
				3,715,570
Chemicals—0.2%
LyondellBasell Industries N.V.—Class A		25,000		812,250
Commercial Banks—3.1%
Banco Santander S.A.		103,610		784,563
Barclays plc		258,020		699,216
CIT Group, Inc.*		30,821		1,074,728
HSBC Holdings plc		250,000		1,898,476
M&T Bank Corp. (b)		30,000		2,290,200
Wells Fargo & Co.		221,990		6,118,045
				12,865,228
Communications Equipment—0.2%
Cisco Systems, Inc.		50,000		904,000
Diversified Financial Services—1.7%
Bank of America Corp.		363,720		2,022,283
Diversified Financial Services—(Continued)
Citigroup, Inc.		34,984	$	920,429
JPMorgan Chase & Co.		120,000		3,990,000
				6,932,712
Diversified Telecommunication Services—1.8%
AT&T, Inc. (b)		128,740		3,893,098
CenturyLink, Inc. (b)		30,000		1,116,000
France Telecom S.A.		27,290		428,038
Frontier Communications Corp. (b)		47,001		242,055
Telstra Corp., Ltd.		500,000		1,705,565
				7,384,756
Electric Utilities—5.6%
American Electric Power Co., Inc.		60,000		2,478,600
Duke Energy Corp. (b)		150,000		3,300,000
Entergy Corp. (b)		40,000		2,922,000
FirstEnergy Corp. (b)		50,000		2,215,000
NextEra Energy, Inc. (b)		60,000		3,652,800
Pinnacle West Capital Corp. (b)		15,000		722,700
PPL Corp.		55,000		1,618,100
Progress Energy, Inc.		60,000		3,361,200
Southern Co. (b)		65,000		3,008,850
				23,279,250
Energy Equipment & Services—0.5%
Schlumberger, Ltd.		20,000		1,366,200
Weatherford International, Ltd.*		50,000		732,000
				2,098,200
Gas Utilities—0.2%
AGL Resources, Inc.		20,000		845,200
Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders—0.1%
Dynegy, Inc.* (b)		80,000		221,600
Industrial Conglomerates—1.3%
General Electric Co.		300,000		5,373,000
Insurance—0.2%
QBE Insurance Group, Ltd.		80,000		1,061,444
Machinery—0.2%
Caterpillar, Inc. (b)		10,000		906,000
Media—0.3%
Comcast Corp.—Class A (b)		50,000		1,185,500
Dex One Corp.* (b)		43,546		72,286
				1,257,786

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Metals & Mining—0.7%
AngloGold Ashanti, Ltd. (ADR) (b)		20,000	$	849,000
Barrick Gold Corp.		40,000		1,810,000
Nucor Corp. (b)		10,000		395,700
				3,054,700
Multi-Utilities—4.1%
Dominion Resources, Inc.		40,000		2,123,200
PG&E Corp. (b)		110,000		4,534,200
Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc. (b)		100,000		3,301,000
Sempra Energy		60,000		3,300,000
TECO Energy, Inc. (b)		80,000		1,531,200
Xcel Energy, Inc.		91,927		2,540,862
				17,330,462
Multiline Retail—0.4%
Target Corp.		30,000		1,536,600
Office Electronics—0.2%
Xerox Corp. (b)		100,000		796,000
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—5.5%
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc.* (b)		10,000		204,300
BP plc (ADR)		80,000		3,419,200
Callon Petroleum Co.* (b)		20,471		101,741
Canadian Oil Sands, Ltd.		169,700		3,880,145
Chesapeake Energy Corp. (b)		35,000		780,150
Chevron Corp. (b)		20,000		2,128,000
ConocoPhillips		65,000		4,736,550
Exxon Mobil Corp.		46,744		3,962,021
Royal Dutch Shell plc (ADR)		33,610		2,456,555
Spectra Energy Corp.		40,000		1,230,000
				22,898,662
Pharmaceuticals—6.0%
Johnson & Johnson		85,000		5,574,300
Merck & Co., Inc.		205,230		7,737,171
Pfizer, Inc.		195,170		4,223,479
Roche Holding AG		45,000		7,624,090
				25,159,040
Real Estate Investment Trusts—0.2%
Westfield Retail Trust		272,200		693,924
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—1.0%
Intel Corp. (b)		180,000		4,365,000
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance—0.0%
Federal National Mortgage Association*		6,909		1,390
Wireless Telecommunication Services—1.0%
SK Telecom Co., Ltd. (ADR)		26,090	$	355,085
Sprint Nextel Corp.*		150,000		351,000
Vodafone Group plc		1,201,330		3,336,506
				4,042,591
Total Common Stocks (Cost $142,685,432)				148,816,935
Loan Participation—6.1%
Automobiles—0.5%
Chrysler Group LLC 6.000%, 05/24/17		2,189,000		2,077,361
Electric Utilities—1.5%
Texas Competitive Electric Holdings Co. LLC/ TCEH Finance, Inc. 4.776%, 10/10/17		10,097,730		6,419,278
Food & Staples Retailing—0.2%
BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc. 7.000%, 09/30/18		1,000,000		1,004,370
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—0.3%
Kinetic Concepts, Inc. 7.000%, 05/04/18		1,000,000		1,010,375
Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders—1.2%
Dynegy Holdings, Inc. 9.250%, 08/04/16		4,987,500		5,054,957
Internet Software & Services—0.2%
Go Daddy Group, Inc. (The) Term Loan 7.000%, 12/17/18		997,500		999,994
IT Services—0.6%
First Data Corp. 3.044%, 09/24/14		1,794,002		1,632,550
SRA International, Inc. 6.500%, 07/20/18		965,714		914,213
				2,546,763
Media—0.6%
Clear Channel Communications, Inc. 3.946%, 01/28/16		719,284		534,295
Cumulus Media, Inc. 7.500%, 02/11/19		2,000,000		1,953,750
Supermedia, Inc. 0.000%, 12/31/15 (f)		130,943		327

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Loan Participation—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Media—(Continued)
11.000%, 12/31/15		95,238	$	44,733
				2,533,105
Real Estate Investment Trusts—0.6%
iStar Financial, Inc. 7.000%, 06/30/14		2,500,000		2,425,012
Software—0.4%
Sophia, L.P. Term Loan 0.000%, 07/13/18 (f)		1,500,000		1,502,348
Total Loan Participation (Cost $26,902,581)				25,573,563
Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—4.9%
Chemicals—0.6%
Ineos Group Holdings, Ltd. 7.875%, 02/15/16 (144A)(EUR)		158,000		151,663
Kerling plc 10.625%, 02/01/17 (144A)(EUR)		1,100,000		1,262,775
Kinove German Bondco GmbH 10.000%, 06/15/18 (144A)(EUR)		1,000,000		1,154,463
				2,568,901
Commercial Services & Supplies—0.5%
CEVA Group plc 8.375%, 12/01/17 (144A)		900,000		848,250
11.500%, 04/01/18 (144A)		1,400,000		1,270,500
				2,118,750
Construction & Engineering—0.3%
Abengoa Finance SAU 8.875%, 11/01/17 (144A)		1,200,000		1,206,000
Construction Materials—0.2%
Cemex S.A.B. de C.V. 9.000%, 01/11/18 (144A)		1,000,000		802,500
Diversified Financial Services—0.9%
Petroplus Finance, Ltd. 6.750%, 05/01/14 (144A) (b)		1,000,000		610,000
7.000%, 05/01/17 (144A) (b)		1,070,000		545,700
9.375%, 09/15/19 (144A) (b)		1,340,000		696,800
UPCB Finance III, Ltd. 6.625%, 07/01/20 (144A)		1,000,000		990,000
UPCB Finance V, Ltd. 7.250%, 11/15/21 (144A)		1,000,000		1,017,500
				3,860,000
Diversified Telecommunication Services—0.5%
Intelsat Jackson Holdings S.A. 7.500%, 04/01/21 (144A)		1,500,000	$	1,520,625
Virgin Media Secured Finance plc 7.000%, 01/15/18 (GBP)		400,000		658,705
				2,179,330
Energy Equipment & Services—0.2%
CHC Helicopter S.A. 9.250%, 10/15/20 (144A)		1,000,000		905,000
Food Products—0.3%
Boparan Holdings, Ltd. 9.750%, 04/30/18 (144A) (EUR)		500,000		522,103
9.875%, 04/30/18 (144A) (GBP)		500,000		621,420
				1,143,523
Metals & Mining—0.7%
FMG Resources (August 2006) Pty, Ltd. 7.000%, 11/01/15 (144A)		400,000		406,000
6.875%, 02/01/18 (144A)		2,500,000		2,406,250
				2,812,250
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—0.6%
Expro Finance Luxembourg SCA 8.500%, 12/15/16 (144A)		1,100,000		973,500
OGX Petroleo e Gas Participacoes S.A. 8.500%, 06/01/18 (144A)		1,500,000		1,485,000
				2,458,500
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—0.1%
NXP B.V./NXP Funding LLC 9.750%, 08/01/18 (144A)		500,000		547,500
Total Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities (Cost $23,340,640)				20,602,254
Convertible Preferred Stocks—3.3%
Automobiles—0.2%
General Motors Co. Series B 4.750%, 12/01/13		25,000		865,625
Commercial Banks—0.7%
Wells Fargo & Co. Series L 7.500%, 12/31/49		2,800		2,951,200
Diversified Financial Services—1.3%
Bank of America Corp. Series L 7.250%, 12/31/49		4,500		3,546,090

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Convertible Preferred Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Diversified Financial Services—(Continued)
Citigroup, Inc. 7.500%, 12/15/12		20,000	$	1,625,000
				5,171,090
Electric Utilities—0.1%
NextEra Energy, Inc. 8.375%, 06/01/12		10,000		506,100
Health Care Providers & Services—0.2%
Tenet Healthcare Corp. 7.000%, 10/01/12		1,100		940,500
Metals & Mining—0.2%
AngloGold Ashanti Holdings Finance plc 6.000%, 09/15/13		20,000		948,802
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—0.4%
Chesapeake Energy Corp. 5.750%, 12/31/49 (144A)		1,500		1,473,750
Real Estate Investment Trusts—0.2%
FelCor Lodging Trust, Inc. Series A 1.950%, 12/31/49 (b)		34,000		761,811
Total Convertible Preferred Stocks (Cost $13,547,026)				13,618,878
Preferred Stocks—2.1%
Commercial Banks—0.3%
M&T Bank Corp. (144A)		1,000,000		980,000
Consumer Finance—0.0%
Ally Financial, Inc., Series G (144A)		141		101,084
Diversified Financial Services—1.4%
Bank of America Corp. (b) (e)		1,500,000		1,348,125
JPMorgan Chase & Co., Series 1 (e)		4,250,000		4,540,198
				5,888,323
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—0.4%
SandRidge Energy, Inc.		15,000		1,790,625
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance—0.0%
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., Series Z * (e)		10,300		13,699
Federal National Mortgage Association, Series S * (e)		6,900		9,522
				23,221
Total Preferred Stocks (Cost $7,454,140)				8,783,253
Convertible Bonds—0.5%
Security Description	Shares/Par Amount($)†		Value
Construction Materials—0.2%
Cemex S.A.B. de C.V. 3.250%, 03/15/16 (144A)		900,000	$	590,625
3.750%, 03/15/18 (144A)		570,000		372,638
				963,263
Real Estate Investment Trusts—0.1%
iStar Financial, Inc. 1.081%, 10/01/12 (e)		500,000		450,000
Real Estate Management & Development—0.2%
Forest City Enterprises, Inc. 4.250%, 08/15/18 (144A)		1,000,000		877,500
Total Convertible Bonds (Cost $2,862,857)				2,290,763
Mortgage-Backed Securities—0.3%
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities—0.3%
Banc of America Large Loan, Inc. Series 2010-HLTN Class HLTN 2.028%, 11/15/15 (144A) (e)		1,432,987		1,297,814
Total Mortgage-Backed Securities (Cost $1,246,699)				1,297,814
Municipals—0.1%
California State General Obligation Unlimited, Build America Bonds 7.950%, 03/01/36		345,000		390,464
Total Municipals (Cost $345,407)				390,464
Warrants—0.0%
Automobiles—0.0%
General Motors Co., expires 07/10/16*		1,388		16,282
General Motors Co., expires 07/10/19*		1,388		10,854
				27,136
Energy Equipment & Services—0.0%
Green Field Energy Services, Inc., expires on 11/15/21*		500		22,500

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Warrants—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares/Par Amount		Value
Media—0.0%
Charter Communications, Inc., expires 11/30/14*		1,273	$	22,150
Total Warrants (Cost $149,408)				71,786
Short-Term Investments—23.0%
Discount Notes—0.1%
Federal Home Loan Bank 0.001%, 01/03/12 (d)	$	550,000		550,000
Mutual Funds—14.4%
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (g)		60,062,720		60,062,720
Repurchase Agreement—8.5%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $35,397,039 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $36,155,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. at 0.625% due 12/23/13 with a value of $36,109,806.	$	35,397,000		35,397,000
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $96,009,720)				96,009,720
Total Investments—113.4% (Cost $470,501,567#)				473,313,742
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(13.4)%				(56,060,037	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	417,253,705

* Non-income producing security.

† Par amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $472,359,706. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $28,325,266 and $(27,371,230), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $954,036 for federal income tax purposes.

(a) Security is in default and/or issuer is in bankruptcy.

(b) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities loaned was $58,043,113 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $60,062,720. The cash collateral is invested in a money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian.

(c) Payment-in-kind security for which part of the income earned may be paid as additional principal.

(d) Zero coupon bond—Interest rate represents current yield to maturity.

(e) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2011. Maturity date shown for callable securities reflects the earliest possible call date.

(f) This Senior Loan will settle after December 31, 2011, at which time the interest rate will be determined.

(g) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities lending transactions.

(144A)— Securities exempt from registration under Rule 144A of the Securities Act of 1933. These securities may be resold in transactions exempt from registration, normally to qualified institutional buyers. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of 144A securities was $84,357,473, which is 20.2% of net assets.

(ADR)— An American Depositary Receipt is a certificate issued by a custodian bank representing the right to receive securities of the foreign issuer described. Trading on exchanges not located in the United States or Canada significantly influences the value of ADRs.

(EUR)— Euro

(GBP)— British Pound

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Total Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities*	$	—	$	155,858,312	$	—	$	155,858,312
Common Stocks
Aerospace & Defense		1,250,618		—		—		1,250,618
Automobiles		30,952		—		—		30,952
Beverages		2,405,851		1,309,719		—		3,715,570
Chemicals		812,250		—		—		812,250
Commercial Banks		9,482,973		3,382,255		—		12,865,228
Communications Equipment		904,000		—		—		904,000
Diversified Financial Services		6,932,712		—		—		6,932,712
Diversified Telecommunication Services		5,251,153		2,133,603		—		7,384,756
Electric Utilities		23,279,250		—		—		23,279,250
Energy Equipment & Services		2,098,200		—		—		2,098,200
Gas Utilities		845,200		—		—		845,200
Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders		221,600		—		—		221,600
Industrial Conglomerates		5,373,000		—		—		5,373,000
Insurance		—		1,061,444		—		1,061,444
Machinery		906,000		—		—		906,000
Media		1,257,786		—		—		1,257,786
Metals & Mining		3,054,700		—		—		3,054,700
Multi-Utilities		17,330,462		—		—		17,330,462
Multiline Retail		1,536,600		—		—		1,536,600
Office Electronics		796,000		—		—		796,000
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels		22,898,662		—		—		22,898,662
Pharmaceuticals		17,534,950		7,624,090		—		25,159,040
Real Estate Investment Trusts		—		693,924		—		693,924
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment		4,365,000		—		—		4,365,000
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance		1,390		—		—		1,390
Wireless Telecommunication Services		706,085		3,336,506		—		4,042,591
Total Common Stocks		129,275,394		19,541,541		—		148,816,935
Total Loan Participation*		—		25,573,563		—		25,573,563
Total Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities*		—		20,602,254		—		20,602,254
Total Convertible Preferred Stocks*		13,618,878		—		—		13,618,878

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY—(Continued)

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Preferred Stocks
Commercial Banks	$	—	$	980,000	$	—	$	980,000
Consumer Finance		101,084		—		—		101,084
Diversified Financial Services		—		5,888,323		—		5,888,323
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels		—		1,790,625		—		1,790,625
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance		23,221		—		—		23,221
Total Preferred Stocks		124,305		8,658,948		—		8,783,253
Total Convertible Bonds*		—		2,290,763		—		2,290,763
Total Mortgage-Backed Securities*		—		1,297,814		—		1,297,814
Municipals		—		390,464		—		390,464
Warrants
Automobiles		27,136		—		—		27,136
Energy Equipment & Services		—		22,500		—		22,500
Media		22,150		—		—		22,150
Total Warrants		49,286		22,500		—		71,786
Short-Term Investments
Discount Notes		—		550,000		—		550,000
Mutual Funds		60,062,720		—		—		60,062,720
Repurchase Agreement		—		35,397,000		—		35,397,000
Total Short-Term Investments		60,062,720		35,947,000		—		96,009,720
Total Investments	$	203,130,583	$	270,183,159	$	—	$	473,313,742

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Income Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)(b)	$	437,916,742
Repurchase Agreement		35,397,000
Cash		254,379
Cash denominated in foreign currencies (c)		1,576
Receivable for investments sold		875,800
Receivable for shares sold		18,829
Dividends receivable		634,490
Interest receivable		4,059,249
Total assets		479,158,065
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		1,470,000
Shares redeemed		30,821
Collateral for securities loaned		60,062,720
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		230,207
Distribution and service fees - Class B		19,182
Administration fees		1,966
Custodian and accounting fees		6,968
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		57,429
Total liabilities		61,904,360
Net Assets	$	417,253,705
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	384,967,273
Accumulated net realized gain		7,523,542
Unrealized appreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		2,805,237
Undistributed net investment income		21,957,653
Net Assets	$	417,253,705
Net Assets
Class A	$	325,640,350
Class B		91,613,355
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		31,953,531
Class B		9,042,089
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	10.19
Class B		10.13

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreement, was $435,104,567.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $58,043,113.

(c) Identified cost of cash denominated in foreign currencies was $1,687.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	6,609,860
Interest (b)		19,319,941
Total investment income		25,929,801
Expenses
Management fees		2,876,004
Administration fees		22,361
Custodian and accounting fees		88,964
Distribution and service fees - Class B		199,236
Audit and tax services		49,840
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Shareholder reporting		67,793
Insurance		3,119
Miscellaneous		8,350
Total expenses		3,384,377
Less management fee waiver		(303,898	)
Net expenses		3,080,479
Net investment income		22,849,322
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments and Foreign Currency Transactions
Net realized gain on:
Investments		8,512,861
Foreign currency transactions		5,167
Net realized gain on investments and foreign currency transactions		8,518,028
Net change in unrealized depreciation from:
Investments		(23,822,371	)
Foreign currency transactions		(12,059	)
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		(23,834,430	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments and foreign currency transactions		(15,316,402	)
Net Increase in Net Assets from Operations	$	7,532,920

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $110,471.

(b) Includes net income on securities loaned of $234,128.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Income Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	22,849,322		$	18,136,899
Net realized gain on investments and foreign currency transactions		8,518,028			8,092,581
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments and foreign currency transactions		(23,834,430	)		8,378,319
Net increase in net assets resulting from operations		7,532,920			34,607,799
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(14,660,207	)		(10,752,103	)
Class B		(3,479,136	)		(1,727,909	)
From net realized capital gains
Class A		(8,816,105	)		(1,447,311	)
Class B		(2,160,135	)		(239,114	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(29,115,583	)		(14,166,437	)
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		86,115,731			79,264,263
Net Increase in Net Assets		64,533,068			99,705,625
Net assets at beginning of period		352,720,637			253,015,012
Net assets at end of period	$	417,253,705		$	352,720,637
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	21,957,653		$	18,065,231

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		4,951,326		$	51,674,850			5,088,565		$	51,815,306
Reinvestments		2,231,589			23,476,312			1,210,259			12,199,414
Redemptions		(2,138,953	)		(21,758,898	)		(1,271,232	)		(12,513,995	)
Net increase		5,043,962		$	53,392,264			5,027,592		$	51,500,725
Class B
Sales		4,351,299		$	45,103,867			3,232,881		$	32,725,980
Reinvestments		538,099			5,639,271			195,724			1,967,023
Redemptions		(1,774,552	)		(18,019,671	)		(689,150	)		(6,929,465	)
Net increase		3,114,846		$	32,723,467			2,739,455		$	27,763,538
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	86,115,731					$	79,264,263

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Income Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009		2008(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.75		$	10.10		$	7.87	$	10.00
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.62			0.63			0.66		0.36
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.33	)		0.55			1.57		(2.29	)
Total from investment operations		0.29			1.18			2.23		(1.93	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.53	)		(0.47	)		0.00		(0.20	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.32	)		0.00			0.00		0.00
Distributions from return of capital		0.00			(0.06	)		0.00		(0.00	)+
Total distributions		(0.85	)		(0.53	)		0.00		(0.20	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.19		$	10.75		$	10.10	$	7.87
Total Return (%)		2.38			12.13			28.05		(19.19	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.82			0.85			0.93		1.03	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)		0.74			0.76			0.82		0.88	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		5.92			6.19			7.42		6.13	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		19.8			34.4			33.4		12.7
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	325.6		$	289.3		$	220.9	$	92.0
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009		2008(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.70		$	10.07		$	7.86	$	10.00
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.59			0.60			0.64		0.35
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.33	)		0.54			1.57		(2.30	)
Total from investment operations		0.26			1.14			2.21		(1.95	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.51	)		(0.45	)		0.00		(0.19	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.32	)		0.00			0.00		0.00
Distributions from return of capital		0.00			(0.06	)		0.00		(0.00	)+
Total distributions		(0.83	)		(0.51	)		0.00		(0.19	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.13		$	10.70		$	10.07	$	7.86
Total Return (%)		2.13			11.82			27.83		(19.36	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.07			1.10			1.18		1.28	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)		0.99			1.01			1.07		1.14	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		5.68			5.91			7.13		6.06	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		19.8			34.4			33.4		12.7
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	91.6		$	63.4		$	32.1	$	10.0

* Annualized.

+ Distributions from return of capital were less than $0.01.

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Commencement of operations was 4/28/2008.

(c) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Met/Franklin Income Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A and B Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to foreign currency transactions, deferred trustees’ compensation, defaulted bonds, convertible preferred stock, premium amortization adjustments, Real Estate Investment Trust (REITs) and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Foreign Currency Translation - The books and records of the Portfolio are maintained in U.S. dollars. The values of securities, currencies and other assets and liabilities denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars are translated into U.S. dollars based upon foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period. Purchases and sales of investment securities, income and expenses are translated on the respective dates of such transactions. Since the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, it is not practical to isolate that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates from that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities. Such fluctuations are included in the net realized and unrealized gain or loss on investments.

Net realized foreign exchange gains or losses arise from activity in forward foreign currency exchange contracts, sales of foreign currency, currency gains or losses realized between the trade and settlement dates on securities transactions, and the difference between the amounts of dividends, interest, and foreign withholding taxes recorded by the Portfolio and the U.S. dollar equivalent of the amounts actually received or paid by the Portfolio. Gains and losses attributable to foreign currency exchange rates on sales of securities are recorded as Net realized gains and losses on investments. Net unrealized foreign exchange gains and losses arise from changes in the value of assets and liabilities, other than investment securities, resulting from changes in foreign exchange rates.

Securities Lending - The Portfolio may lend its portfolio securities to certain qualified brokers who borrow securities in order to complete certain securities transactions. By lending its portfolio securities, the Portfolio attempts to increase its net investment income through the receipt of income on the loaned securities. Any gain or loss in the market price of the loaned securities that might occur and any interest earned or dividends declared during the term of the loan would accrue to the account of the Portfolio.

The Trust has entered into a securities lending arrangement with the custodian, State Street Bank and Trust Company (the “custodian”). Under this arrangement, the custodian is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral at least equal to 102% of the market value of the loaned securities (105% for foreign equity securities), at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities must be maintained for the duration of the loan. Cash collateral is generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The Navigator Portfolio is a registered money market fund which invests in a variety of high quality U.S. dollar-denominated instruments. If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower shall be required to deliver, by the close of business on the following business day, an additional amount of collateral so that the total amount of posted collateral equals at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of net income (income after the deduction of expenses and fees of the Navigator Portfolio) on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the custodian and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by U.S. Treasuries, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the custodian. The risks associated with lending portfolio securities include, but are not limited to, possible delays in receiving additional collateral or in the recovery of the loaned securities, possible loss of rights in the collateral should the borrower fail financially, as well as risk of loss in the value of the collateral or the value of the investments made with the collateral. Net interest income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2011 is disclosed in the footnotes to the Statement of Operations. Any outstanding loans by the Portfolio at December 31, 2011 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments.

High Yield Debt Securities - The Portfolio may invest in high yield debt securities, or “junk bonds,” which are securities that are rated below “investment grade” or, if not rated, are of equivalent quality. A portfolio with high yield debt securities generally will be exposed to greater market risk and credit risk than a portfolio that invests only in investment grade debt securities because issuers of high yield debt securities are less secure financially, are more likely to default on their obligations, and their securities are more sensitive to interest rate changes and downturns in the economy. In addition, the secondary market for lower-rated debt securities may not be as liquid as that for more highly rated debt securities. As a result, the Portfolio’s Subadviser may find it more difficult to value lower-rated debt securities or sell them and may have to sell them at prices significantly lower than the values assigned to them by the Portfolio.

Mortgage Related and Other Asset Backed Securities - The Portfolio may invest in mortgage related or other asset-backed securities. These securities may include mortgage pass-through securities, collateralized mortgaged obligations (“CMOs”), commercial mortgage-backed securities, mortgage dollar rolls, CMO residuals, stripped mortgage backed securities (“SMBS”) and other securities that directly or indirectly represent a participation in, or are secured by or payable from, mortgage loans on real property or other receivables. The value of some mortgage or asset-backed securities may be particularly sensitive to changes in prevailing interest rates. Early repayment of principal on some mortgage-related securities may expose the Portfolio to a lower rate of return upon reinvestment of principal. The value of these securities may fluctuate in response to the market’s perception of the creditworthiness of the issuers. Additionally, although mortgages and mortgage-related securities are generally supported by some form of government or private guarantee and/or insurance, there is no assurance that private guarantors or insurers will meet their obligations.

In one type of SMBS, one class receives all of the interest from the mortgage assets (the interest-only or “IO” class), while the other class will receive all of the principal (the principal-only or “PO” class). Payments received for the IOs are included in interest income on the Statement of

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Operations of the Portfolio. Because principal will not be received at the maturity of an IO, adjustments are made to the book value of the security until maturity. These adjustments are included in interest income on the Statement of Operations of the Portfolio. Payments received for POs are treated as reductions to the cost and par value of the securities. Details of mortgage related and other asset-backed securities held by the Portfolio are included in the Portfolio’s Schedule of Investments.

The Portfolio may invest a significant portion of its assets in securities of issuers that hold mortgage and asset-backed securities and direct investments in securities backed by commercial and residential mortgage loans and other financial assets. The value and related income of these securities are sensitive to changes in economic conditions, including delinquencies and/or defaults, and may be negatively impacted by increased volatility of market prices and periods of illiquidity.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with Franklin Advisers, Inc. (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year  ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$2,876,004		0.800	%	First $200 Million
		0.675	%	$200 Million to $500 Million
		0.650	%	Over $500 Million

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

The subadvisory fee the Adviser pays to the Subadviser in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio is calculated based on the aggregate average daily net assets of the Portfolio and certain other portfolios of the Trust that are managed by the Subadviser and/or its affiliates.

Management Fee Waiver - The subadvisory fee the Adviser pays to the Subadviser in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio is calculated based on the aggregate average daily net assets of the Portfolio and certain other portfolios of the Trust that are managed by the Subadviser and/or its affiliates.

From January 1, 2011 through February 28, 2011, the Adviser voluntarily agreed to waive a portion of the management fee reflecting the difference, if any, between the subadvisory fee payable by the Adviser to the Subadviser that was calculated based solely on the assets of the Portfolio and the fee that was calculated when the Portfolio’s assets were aggregated with those of the Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio and Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio, each a series of the Trust.

From March 1, 2011 through April 30, 2011, the Adviser voluntarily agreed to waive a portion of the management fee reflecting the difference, if any, between the subadvisory fee payable by the Adviser to the Subadviser that was calculated based solely on the assets of the Portfolio and the fee that was calculated when the Portfolio’s assets were aggregated with those of the Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio, Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio and Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio, each a series of the Trust.

From May 1, 2011 through May 23, 2011, the Adviser contractually agreed to waive a portion of the management fee reflecting the difference, if any, between the subadvisory fee payable by the Adviser to the Subadviser that was calculated based solely on the assets of the Portfolio and the fee that was calculated when the Portfolio’s assets were aggregated with those of the Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio, Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio and Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio, each a series of the Trust. Over the same period of time, the assets of Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio were included on a voluntary basis for purposing of determining the amount of the management fee waiver. Effective May 24, 2011, the assets of Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio were contractually added to the calculation of the management fee waiver.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as a management fee waiver in the Statement of Operations.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Distribution Agreement and Plan - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A and Class B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B distribution plan provides that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B Shares. However, under the Class B distribution agreement, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B distribution plan are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B distribution plan and distribution agreement, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$—	$	141,108,560	$	—	$	71,269,090

5. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

7. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gains				Return of Capital				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$24,342,066	$	13,314,818	$	4,773,517	$	851,619	$	—	$	—	$	29,115,583	$	14,166,437

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards and Deferrals		Total
$23,137,308	$	8,227,094	$	947,098	$	—	$	32,311,500

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses. At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not have any capital loss carryforwards.

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Income Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Met/Franklin Income Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Met/Franklin Income Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”), as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Met/Franklin Income Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 28, 2012

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

25

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

26

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

27

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Income Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the Met/Franklin Income Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

28

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Income Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the Met/Franklin Income Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the one- year period ended June 30, 2011 and outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the three- year period ended June 30, 2011. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its blended benchmark, S&P 500 Index (50%) and Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index (50%), for the one- year period ended September 30, 2011, and outperformed its blended benchmark for the three- year period ended September 30, 2011. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance, including its comparable performance against other similar funds. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s overall performance was adequate.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to

29

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Income Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the Met/Franklin Income Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees were above the Expense Group median, the Expense Universe median, and the Sub-advised Expense Universe median, and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were equal to the Expense Group median, and above the Expense Universe median and Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were above the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were above the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s expenses, including the effect of the current size of the Portfolio on expenses. The Board noted that the Adviser had waived fees and/or reimbursed expenses during the past year. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the

30

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Income Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

With respect to the Met/Franklin Income Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee and sub-advisory fee each contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board further considered that the Portfolio’s management fees were above the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

31

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio

Managed by Franklin Advisers, Inc.

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

Since its inception on April 29, 2011, the Class A and B shares of the Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio returned -1.20% and -1.40%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Barclays Capital U.S. Govt/Credit 1-3 Year Bond Index¹, returned 1.02%.

Market Environment/Conditions

During the period, the U.S. economy navigated through volatile conditions and headwinds. The European economy continued to take center stage as a driver of financial markets and interest rates.

In the broad markets, U.S. Treasuries benefited from a flight to quality and a risk-averse environment, and few fixed income sectors kept pace with Treasuries over the period. However, on the shorter part of the yield curve, where this Portfolio focuses its investments, Treasuries did not perform as strongly, and a number of other fixed income sectors performed as well or better. According to Barclays Capital 1-3 Year Indexes, U.S. residential mortgage-backed securities (MBS), commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) and municipal bonds performed better than comparable Treasuries. Other sectors had positive returns, but did not keep pace with comparable Treasuries, including floating rate asset-backed securities, U.S. investment grade corporate bonds, and emerging market U.S. dollar-denominated bonds. U.S. high yield corporate bonds lagged with negative returns.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

Throughout the reporting period, we applied our investment strategy and emphasized shorter-term and adjustable-rate securities to maintain a lower interest rate risk profile. Heightened volatility and a U.S. Treasury rally over the period led many spread sectors to post positive total returns but negative excess returns as they lagged Treasuries. We maintained our conviction that over the long term, global bond markets present some of the best investment opportunities and accordingly, we continued to hold an overweighted exposure to international bonds and foreign currencies relative to the benchmark. Foreign currency allocation had a large negative impact over the period, while yield curve movements in non-U.S. markets contributed to performance. Corporate credit valuations remained attractive to us on a longer-term basis, and the Portfolio held an overweighted allocation to many credit sectors. Although corporate yield spreads over Treasuries tightened toward period-end, they remained wide and ended the period higher than they were at the beginning. Our overweighting in below-investment grade credit detracted from performance as the sector did not keep pace with the performance of Treasuries. Our slight overweight to investment grade corporate credit also mildly detracted from performance.

We held a small allocation in the CMBS sector (not part of the benchmark) that had a modest positive impact on performance. Likewise, our allocation in agency MBS (not part of the benchmark), benefited results as agency mortgages outperformed Treasuries. Our U.S. yield curve positioning also contributed to performance.

The Portfolio’s strategy generally remained overweight to the spread sectors and underweight in U.S. Treasuries. Although we continually considered adjustments to positioning based on changes in fundamental news and valuations, we continued to believe that year-end credit allocations were appropriate and can offer potential value over the course of a market cycle. For example, although we were overweight in financial credits, we also were underweight in European financials and maintained a bias toward U.S. dollar-denominated and generally stronger global financial institutions that we believe may be able to perform well as market conditions normalize. Although our overall weighting in the high yield sector did not change meaningfully, we did shift some exposure from bank loans into the high yield corporate sector. High yield valuations became even more attractive to us over recent months, given our expectations of low defaults, although we continue to closely monitor individual company fundamentals.

Kent Burns, CFA

Roger A. Bayston, CFA

Christopher J. Molumphy, CFA

Franklin Advisers, Inc.

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio

Managed by Franklin Advisers, Inc.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Issuers

	% of Net Assets
U.S. Treasury Notes		18.8
Fannie Mae ARM Pool		6.4
Fannie Mae 15 Yr. Pool		3.3
U.S. Treasury Inflation Indexed Notes		2.6
Freddie Mac ARM Non Gold Pool		2.3
Korea Treasury Bond		2.0
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. Multifamily Structured Pass-Through Certificates		1.7
Malaysia Government Bond		1.4
Sweden Government Bond		1.3
Poland Government Bond		1.2

Top Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies		34.4
Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities		23.6
Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities		18.5
Mortgage-Backed Securities		6.0
Cash & Cash Equivalents		5.6
Asset-Backed Securities		4.4
Municipals		3.9
Loan Participation		3.5
Convertible Bonds		0.1

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio

Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio managed by Franklin Advisers, Inc. vs. Barclays Capital U.S. Govt/Credit 1-3 Year Bond Index¹

	Cumulative Return2 (for the period ended 12/31/11)
	Since Inception3
Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio—Class A		-1.20%
Class B		-1.40%
Barclays Capital U.S. Govt/Credit 1-3 Year Bond Index1		1.02%

The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other class because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹ The Barclays Capital U.S. Govt/Credit 1-3 Year Bond Index measures performance of U.S. Dollar-denominated U.S. Treasuries, government-related, and investment grade U.S. Corporate securities that have maturities ranging from one to three years.

²“Cumulative Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

³ Inception of the Class A and B shares is 4/29/2011. Index returns are based on an inception date of 4/29/2011.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A(a)
Actual		0.56%	$	1,000.00	$	989.00	$	2.81
Hypothetical*		0.56%		1,000.00		1,022.38		2.85
Class B(a)
Actual		0.81%	$	1,000.00	$	987.00	$	4.06
Hypothetical*		0.81%		1,000.00		1,021.12		4.13

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

(a) The annualized expense ratio reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 3 to the Financial Statements.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—34.1% of Net Assets

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Agency Sponsored Mortgage - Backed—12.1%
Fannie Mae 15 Yr. Pool 4.500%, 09/01/24		5,277,974	$	5,629,968
4.500%, 03/01/25		8,316,724		8,871,377
4.000%, 04/01/26		6,627,843		7,002,547
4.000%, 05/01/26		6,353,884		6,713,100
Fannie Mae ARM Pool 2.000%, 05/01/19 (a)		130,210		131,591
2.225%, 01/01/20 (a)		196,344		206,217
2.323%, 02/01/32 (a)		154,753		162,620
2.376%, 06/01/32 (a)		46,331		47,358
2.365%, 01/01/33 (a)		208,074		210,280
2.447%, 06/01/33 (a)		122,263		123,409
2.498%, 08/01/33 (a)		137,613		145,402
2.424%, 10/01/33 (a)		124,726		131,295
2.750%, 05/01/34 (a)		224,006		227,500
3.629%, 05/01/34 (a)		138,826		139,059
2.521%, 11/01/34 (a)		11,651,002		12,372,659
2.700%, 11/01/34 (a)		102,509		104,107
2.505%, 02/01/35 (a)		232,923		245,639
4.207%, 03/01/35 (a)		135,196		142,349
2.685%, 04/01/35 (a)		2,253,811		2,394,190
2.312%, 06/01/35 (a)		130,962		136,898
2.248%, 07/01/35 (a)		462,485		487,593
2.470%, 08/01/35 (a)		2,817,638		2,978,771
2.546%, 09/01/35 (a)		14,803,058		15,586,826
1.962%, 11/01/35 (a)		378,216		394,410
2.664%, 11/01/35 (a)		8,553,648		9,090,189
5.139%, 11/01/35 (a)		129,869		137,925
2.568%, 12/01/35 (a)		241,342		251,249
1.846%, 02/01/36 (a)		223,596		231,030
1.962%, 03/01/36 (a)		603,969		633,931
2.300%, 07/01/36 (a)		117,219		121,206
2.469%, 11/01/36 (a)		8,243,289		8,692,546
Freddie Mac ARM Non Gold Pool 2.725%, 04/01/34 (a)		1,662,224		1,771,037
2.500%, 05/01/34 (a)		525,927		555,021
2.550%, 01/01/35 (a)		211,961		223,747
2.584%, 01/01/35 (a)		1,912,349		2,020,042
2.558%, 03/01/35 (a)		1,671,836		1,766,748
3.143%, 04/01/35 (a)		127,526		129,897
3.512%, 07/01/35 (a)		595,202		630,888
2.592%, 07/01/36 (a)		165,955		174,870
2.714%, 06/01/37 (a)		9,715,357		10,339,576
3.465%, 06/01/37 (a)		819,715		868,929
2.553%, 07/01/37 (a)		865,238		915,432
4.140%, 09/01/37 (a)		816,803		863,984
				104,003,412
U.S. Treasury—22.0%
U.S. Treasury Bonds 11.250%, 02/15/15		4,000,000	$	5,338,124
U.S. Treasury Inflation Indexed Notes 1.875%, 07/15/13		14,178,120		14,834,964
1.250%, 04/15/14		7,275,660		7,628,646
U.S. Treasury Notes 4.000%, 02/15/14		20,100,000		21,679,739
1.375%, 01/15/13		10,000,000		10,125,780
3.500%, 05/31/13		4,500,000		4,708,125
4.250%, 08/15/13		17,300,000		18,420,452
3.125%, 08/31/13		28,000,000		29,338,764
0.750%, 09/15/13		4,000,000		4,034,844
3.125%, 09/30/13		1,000,000		1,050,039
2.750%, 10/31/13		10,000,000		10,454,300
4.250%, 11/15/13		27,000,000		29,001,807
2.000%, 11/30/13		11,000,000		11,364,804
4.750%, 05/15/14		12,800,000		14,140,006
4.250%, 11/15/14		7,000,000		7,773,283
				189,893,677
Total U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies (Cost $294,573,199)				293,897,089
Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—23.4%
Airlines—0.1%
American Airlines, Inc. 7.500%, 03/15/16 (144A)(b)		1,000,000		720,000
Auto Components—0.1%
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (The) 10.500%, 05/15/16		700,000		775,250
Beverages—0.5%
Anheuser-Busch InBev Worldwide, Inc. 2.500%, 03/26/13		4,200,000		4,278,935
Biotechnology—0.3%
Amgen, Inc. 1.875%, 11/15/14		1,500,000		1,520,472
Gilead Sciences, Inc. 2.400%, 12/01/14		1,000,000		1,018,722
				2,539,194
Capital Markets—1.1%
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The) 5.500%, 11/15/14		4,200,000		4,329,986
Morgan Stanley Series GMTN 0.691%, 01/09/14 (a)		6,000,000		5,431,224
				9,761,210

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Commercial Banks—2.5%
BB&T Corp. 2.050%, 04/28/14		5,000,000	$	5,051,680
CIT Group, Inc. 7.000%, 05/02/16 (144A)		1,500,000		1,501,875
Irish Bank Resolution Corp. Ltd 4.000%, 04/15/15 (EUR)		3,000,000		2,789,780
Regions Financial Corp. 4.875%, 04/26/13		2,000,000		1,975,000
Royal Bank of Canada 1.128%, 10/30/14 (a)		6,500,000		6,486,734
U.S. Bancorp Series MTN 1.375%, 09/13/13		4,200,000		4,227,325
				22,032,394
Commercial Services & Supplies—0.5%
Block Financial LLC 5.125%, 10/30/14		4,200,000		4,286,768
Computers & Peripherals—0.5%
Hewlett-Packard Co. 2.109%, 09/19/14 (a)		4,200,000		4,182,578
Construction Materials—0.0%
Euramax International, Inc. 9.500%, 04/01/16 (144A)		500,000		392,500
Consumer Finance—3.0%
Ally Financial, Inc. 1.750%, 10/30/12		7,000,000		7,091,735
4.500%, 02/11/14		1,750,000		1,693,125
Caterpillar Financial Services Corp. Series MTN 1.375%, 05/20/14		4,200,000		4,255,066
Daimler Finance North America LLC 1.950%, 03/28/14 (144A)		4,200,000		4,190,189
Ford Motor Credit Co. LLC 8.000%, 06/01/14		6,000,000		6,534,402
7.000%, 04/15/15		2,000,000		2,155,000
Hyundai Capital America 4.000%, 06/08/17 (144A)		300,000		297,208
				26,216,725
Containers & Packaging—0.2%
Reynolds Group Issuer, Inc./Reynolds Group Issuer LLC 8.750%, 10/15/16 (144A)		1,500,000		1,586,250
Diversified Financial Services—3.0%
Bank of America Corp. 1.941%, 07/11/14 (a)		6,000,000	$	5,401,248
Cemex Finance LLC 9.500%, 12/14/16 (144A)		500,000		441,250
Citigroup Funding, Inc. 1.875%, 10/22/12		7,000,000		7,097,734
Citigroup, Inc. 0.659%, 03/07/14 (a)		4,200,000		3,927,408
International Lease Finance Corp. 6.500%, 09/01/14 (144A)		2,000,000		2,055,000
8.625%, 09/15/15		1,000,000		1,028,750
5.750%, 05/15/16		500,000		464,206
JPMorgan Chase & Co. Series MTN 1.216%, 01/24/14 (a)		5,200,000		5,124,387
				25,539,983
Diversified Telecommunication Services—1.8%
Embarq Corp. 7.082%, 06/01/16		2,071,000		2,246,983
Frontier Communications Corp. 7.875%, 04/15/15		1,500,000		1,528,125
Intelsat S.A. 6.500%, 11/01/13		2,900,000		2,914,500
Qwest Corp. 7.500%, 10/01/14		4,200,000		4,646,972
Verizon Communications, Inc. 1.950%, 03/28/14		4,200,000		4,289,099
				15,625,679
Energy—0.5%
BG Energy Capital plc 2.875%, 10/15/16 (144A)		4,500,000		4,603,473
Food & Staples Retailing—0.2%
Safeway, Inc. 3.400%, 12/01/16		600,000		616,034
Tesco plc 2.000%, 12/05/14 (144A)		1,000,000		1,011,159
				1,627,193
Health Care Providers & Services—0.1%
Community Health Systems, Inc. 8.875%, 07/15/15		482,000		498,870
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—1.3%
Caesars Entertainment Operating Co., Inc. 6.500%, 06/01/16		3,500,000		1,662,500

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—(Continued)
Hilton Worldwide, Inc. 4.957%, 11/15/13 (144A)(a)		8,000,000	$	7,932,416
MGM Resorts International 6.625%, 07/15/15		1,500,000		1,432,500
				11,027,416
Household Durables—1.7%
Centex Corp. 5.250%, 06/15/15		3,000,000		2,850,000
6.500%, 05/01/16		6,000,000		5,745,000
Toll Brothers Finance Corp. 5.150%, 05/15/15		6,000,000		6,202,836
				14,797,836
Household Products—0.5%
Procter & Gamble Co. (The) 0.700%, 08/15/14		4,000,000		4,022,100
Insurance—0.7%
Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. 1.157%, 08/15/14 (a)		6,000,000		6,018,066
Media—1.6%
CCH II LLC/CCH II Capital Corp. 13.500%, 11/30/16		1,000,000		1,160,000
DISH DBS Corp. 7.125%, 02/01/16		1,500,000		1,623,750
Liberty Interactive LLC 5.700%, 05/15/13		6,545,000		6,782,256
NBCUniversal Media LLC 2.100%, 04/01/14		4,200,000		4,271,530
				13,837,536
Metals & Mining—0.3%
Xstrata Canada Financial Corp. 2.850%, 11/10/14 (144A)		2,500,000		2,514,480
Multi-Utilities—0.5%
Sempra Energy 2.000%, 03/15/14		4,200,000		4,255,490
Office Electronics—0.5%
Xerox Corp. 1.281%, 05/16/14 (a)		4,200,000		4,141,204
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—1.1%
Anadarko Petroleum Corp. 5.750%, 06/15/14		2,000,000		2,153,606
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—(Continued)
Chesapeake Energy Corp. 9.500%, 02/15/15		2,000,000	$	2,300,000
Petrohawk Energy Corp. 7.875%, 06/01/15		700,000		749,000
Valero Energy Corp. 4.750%, 06/15/13		4,200,000		4,398,001
				9,600,607
Paper & Forest Products—0.1%
NewPage Corp. 11.375%, 12/31/14 (b)		600,000		446,250
Pharmaceuticals—0.3%
Aristotle Holding, Inc. 2.750%, 11/21/14 (144A)		1,000,000		1,012,822
Teva Pharmaceutical Finance Co., LLC 1.700%, 11/10/14		1,500,000		1,512,647
				2,525,469
Tobacco—0.4%
Lorillard Tobacco Co. 3.500%, 08/04/16		3,800,000		3,847,682
Total Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities (Cost $201,082,301)				201,701,138
Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—18.2%
Beverages—0.1%
Refresco Group B.V. 5.462%, 05/15/18 (144A)(EUR)(a)		400,000		480,205
Capital Markets—0.5%
UBS AG of Stamford, Connecticut 2.250%, 01/28/14		4,200,000		4,089,132
Chemicals—0.1%
Ineos Finance plc 9.000%, 05/15/15 (144A)		800,000		816,000
Ineos Group Holdings, Ltd. 8.500%, 02/15/16 (144A)		700,000		560,000
				1,376,000
Commercial Banks—3.8%
Banco Bradesco S.A. of the Cayman Islands 2.561%, 05/16/14 (144A)(a)		4,200,000		4,125,253

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Commercial Banks—(Continued)
Bank Negara Monetary Notes Series 4211 2.723%, 01/19/12 (MYR)(c)		350,000	$	110,281
Series 6211 2.696%, 06/14/12 (MYR)(c)		920,000		286,426
BBVA U.S. Senior SAU 2.586%, 05/16/14 (a)		4,200,000		3,905,870
Commonwealth Bank of Australia 3.750%, 10/15/14 (144A)		4,200,000		4,330,112
Credit Suisse of New York 2.200%, 01/14/14		4,200,000		4,155,786
HSBC Bank Brasil S.A. - Banco Multiplo 4.000%, 05/11/16 (144A)		4,200,000		4,189,500
Nordea Bank AB 2.125%, 01/14/14 (144A)		4,200,000		4,121,153
Royal Bank of Scotland plc (The) 4.875%, 08/25/14 (144A)		4,200,000		4,112,119
Santander US Debt S.A. Unipersonal 2.991%, 10/07/13 (144A)		4,200,000		4,016,939
				33,353,439
Consumer Finance—0.4%
Banque PSA Finance 3.375%, 04/04/14 (144A)		4,100,000		3,956,533
Diversified Financial Services—0.5%
Woodside Finance, Ltd. 4.500%, 11/10/14 (144A)		4,200,000		4,425,179
Diversified Telecommunication Services—0.2%
Telefonica Emisiones SAU 2.582%, 04/26/13		2,100,000		2,049,825
Energy Equipment & Services—0.6%
Compagnie Generale de Geophysique-Veritas 9.500%, 05/15/16		1,000,000		1,085,000
Schlumberger Norge A.S. 1.950%, 09/14/16 (144A)		4,000,000		4,051,596
				5,136,596
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—0.1%
Kinder Morgan Finance Co. ULC 5.700%, 01/05/16		500,000		513,750
Sovereign—11.8%
Hungary Government International Bond 6.750%, 07/28/14 (EUR)		700,000	$	861,969
Indonesia Recap Bond Series FR20 14.275%, 12/15/13 (IDR)		5,686,000,000		733,376
Indonesia Retail Bond Series ORI7 7.950%, 08/15/13 (IDR)		17,000,000,000		1,966,126
Indonesia Treasury Bond Series FR33 12.500%, 03/15/13 (IDR)		15,700,000,000		1,889,297
Series FR49 9.000%, 09/15/13 (IDR)		2,390,000,000		281,091
Ireland Government Bond 5.000%, 04/18/13 (EUR)		149,000		186,273
4.000%, 01/15/14 (EUR)		250,000		300,358
4.600%, 04/18/16 (EUR)		3,078,000		3,547,928
Israel Government Bond Series 0312 4.000%, 03/30/12 (ILS)		8,550,000		2,315,753
Israel Treasury Bill - Makam Series 0412 3.179%, 04/04/12 (ILS)(c)		8,550,000		2,226,557
Korea Treasury Bond Series 1312 3.000%, 12/10/13 (KRW)		19,640,000,000		16,943,592
Malaysia Government Bond Series 0108 3.461%, 07/31/13 (MYR)		1,860,000		591,530
Series 0109 2.509%, 08/27/12 (MYR)		7,770,000		2,444,474
Series 0309 2.711%, 02/14/12 (MYR)		9,470,000		2,986,441
Series 0509 3.210%, 05/31/13 (MYR)		2,600,000		823,439
Series 3/03 3.702%, 02/25/13 (MYR)		530,000		168,677
Series 5/06 3.718%, 06/15/12 (MYR)		16,610,000		5,257,500
Malaysia Treasury Bill Series 182 2.705%, 04/13/12 (MYR)(c)		550,000		172,096
Mexican Bonos 7.000%, 06/19/14 (MXN)		15,600,000		1,168,827

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Sovereign—(Continued)
Series M 9.000%, 06/20/13 (MXN)		6,500,000	$	493,136
Series MI10 9.000%, 12/20/12 (MXN)		20,800,000		1,550,692
8.000%, 12/19/13 (MXN)		50,200,000		3,803,503
New South Wales Treasury Corp. Series 813 5.500%, 08/01/13 (AUD)		3,900,000		4,097,796
Norway Treasury Bill 2.458%, 03/21/12 (NOK)(c)		45,340,000		7,569,574
Poland Government Bond Series 0113 4.605%, 01/25/13 (PLN)(c)		14,620,000		4,048,166
Series 0412 4.750%, 04/25/12 (PLN)		9,250,000		2,688,035
Series 0713 4.177%, 07/25/13 (PLN)(c)		11,690,000		3,157,294
Series 1013 5.000%, 10/24/13 (PLN)		1,925,000		560,923
Queensland Treasury Corp. 6.000%, 08/21/13 (AUD)		3,810,000		4,016,158
Singapore Government Bond 2.500%, 10/01/12 (SGD)		1,300,000		1,019,841
Singapore Treasury Bill 0.277%, 11/01/12 (SGD)(c)		4,000,000		3,080,698
Sweden Government Bond Series 1046 5.500%, 10/08/12 (SEK)		72,600,000		10,912,728
United Kingdom Gilt 5.000%, 03/07/12 (GBP)		3,770,000		5,904,840
Western Australia Treasury Corp. Series 13 8.000%, 06/15/13 (AUD)		3,600,000		3,905,163
				101,673,851
Specialty Retail—0.1%
Edcon Proprietary, Ltd. 4.676%, 06/15/14 (144A)(EUR)(a)		500,000		478,324
Total Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities (Cost $169,875,026)				157,532,834
Mortgage-Backed Securities—5.9%
Collateralized Mortgage Obligations—0.1%
MLCC Mortgage Investors, Inc. Series 2003-A Class 1A 1.034%, 03/25/28 (a)		1,241,719		1,070,429
Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)
Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities—5.8%
Banc of America Commercial Mortgage, Inc. Series 2006-1 Class AJ 5.460%, 09/10/45 (a)		3,200,000	$	2,813,182
Series 2006-1 Class AM 5.421%, 09/10/45 (a)		3,200,000		3,275,842
Series 2006-4 Class AJ 5.695%, 07/10/46 (a)		1,500,000		1,160,527
Banc of America Large Loan, Inc. Series 2010-HLTN Class HLTN 2.028%, 11/15/15 (144A)(a)		3,057,039		2,768,670
Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. 4.750%, 06/11/41		1,300,000		1,208,697
Series 2006-PW11 Class D 5.441%, 03/11/39 (144A)(a)		2,000,000		983,178
Series 2006-PW13 Class AJ 5.611%, 09/11/41 (a)		3,000,000		2,065,998
Citigroup/Deutsche Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust Series 2005-CD1 Class AJ 5.225%, 07/15/44 (a)		1,700,000		1,525,736
Series 2006-CD3 Class A5 5.617%, 10/15/48		3,200,000		3,518,034
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2005-C6 Class AJ 5.209%, 06/10/44 (a)		1,000,000		901,182
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. Multifamily Structured Pass-Through Certificates Series K007 Class A1 3.342%, 12/25/19		3,778,870		4,026,118
Series K013 Class A1 2.902%, 08/25/20		10,277,916		10,853,156
Greenwich Capital Commercial Funding Corp. Series 2005-GG5 Class A5 5.224%, 04/10/37 (a)		3,200,000		3,436,050
Series 2006-GG7 Class A4 5.882%, 07/10/38 (a)		3,200,000		3,566,478
GS Mortgage Securities Corp. II Series 2006-GG6 Class A4 5.553%, 04/10/38 (a)		3,200,000		3,489,726
Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust Series 2006-C25 Class C 5.737%, 05/15/43 (a)		2,700,000		1,987,213

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)
Series 2007-WHL8 Class A1 0.358%, 06/15/20 (144A)(a)		2,534,409	$	2,268,792
				49,848,579
Total Mortgage-Backed Securities (Cost $52,647,281)				50,919,008
Asset-Backed Securities—4.4%
Asset-Backed - Credit Card—3.8%
American Express Credit Account Master Trust Series 2007-8 Class A 0.578%, 05/15/15 (a)		3,200,000		3,207,351
Capital One Multi-Asset Execution Trust Series 2006-A5 Class A5 0.338%, 01/15/16 (a)		3,200,000		3,194,825
Series 2007-A8 Class A8 0.846%, 10/15/15 (a)		3,935,000		3,939,429
Chase Issuance Trust Series 2007-A9 Class A9 3.151%, 06/16/14 (a)		3,000,000		2,999,205
Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust Series 2009-A1 Class A1 2.028%, 03/17/14 (a)		3,200,000		3,211,214
Citibank Omni Master Trust Series 2009-A8 Class A8 2.378%, 05/16/16 (144A)(a)		3,200,000		3,219,952
Discover Card Master Trust Series 2007-A2 Class A2 0.886%, 06/15/15 (a)		3,200,000		3,209,142
Series 2009-A1 Class A1 1.578%, 12/15/14 (a)		3,200,000		3,219,071
GE Capital Credit Card Master Note Trust Series 2007-4 Class A 0.328%, 06/15/15 (a)		3,500,000		3,497,849
MBNA Credit Card Master Note Trust Series 2006-A5 Class A5 0.338%, 10/15/15 (a)		3,200,000		3,198,585
				32,896,623
Asset-Backed - Home Equity—0.2%
Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Series 2003-HE1 Class M1 1.494%, 05/25/33 (a)		649,869		493,310
Series 2005-WMC1 Class M2 1.029%, 01/25/35 (a)		1,200,000		953,702
				1,447,012
Asset-Backed Securities—(Continued)
Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Asset-Backed - Other—0.4%
Conseco Financial Corp. 6.370%, 07/01/25		913,009	$	917,398
6.740%, 02/01/31		2,726,378		2,692,526
				3,609,924
Total Asset-Backed Securities (Cost $38,110,447)				37,953,559
Municipals—3.9%
Arizona School Facilities Board, Certificates of Participation Series A-2 (NATL-RE) 5.000%, 09/01/16		2,000,000		2,203,000
California State Public Works Board Lease Revenue 3.183%, 12/01/14		3,685,000		3,698,450
3.679%, 12/01/15		3,815,000		3,839,645
Citizens Property Insurance Corp., Revenue Series A3 1.850%, 01/05/12 (a)		2,500,000		2,507,000
City of Burleson, Texas, Refunding, General Oblgation, Ltd. 3.000%, 03/01/13		690,000		707,823
3.000%, 03/01/14		1,010,000		1,055,389
City of Cleveland, Ohio, Public Improvements, General Obligation, Ltd. 2.250%, 12/01/15		1,295,000		1,326,741
Cook County High School District No. 205 Thornton Township, School Improvements (Assured Guaranty Insured) 5.500%, 12/01/16		2,540,000		2,992,399
County of Pima Arizona, Public Improvements, General Obligation Unlimited 3.000%, 07/01/16		2,400,000		2,564,328
New York State Dormitory Authority, Revenue, Refunding (Assured Guaranty Insured) Series B 4.000%, 10/01/14		2,085,000		2,219,691
New York State Urban Development Corp., Revenue, Refunding Series A-2 5.000%, 01/01/15		2,000,000		2,235,620
Reading School District, Refunding, General Obligation Unlimited Series A 5.000%, 04/01/15		2,500,000		2,742,250

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Municipals—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Municipals—(Continued)
State of Illinois, Refunding, General Obligation Unlimited (AGM) 5.000%, 01/01/16		2,500,000	$	2,779,050
Tulsa County Industrial Authority, School Improvements, Revenue 4.000%, 09/01/16		2,315,000		2,547,959
Total Municipals (Cost $33,267,364)				33,419,345
Loan Participation—3.5%
Aerospace & Defense—0.1%
TransDigm Group, Inc. 4.000%, 02/14/17 (a)		595,489		592,187
Automobiles—0.0%
Tomkins LLC 4.250%, 09/29/16 (a)		303,073		302,632
Building Products—0.0%
Goodman Global Holdings, Inc. 5.750%, 10/28/16(a)		297,994		298,609
Chemicals—0.1%
Ashland, Inc. 0.000%, 08/23/18 (d)		251,135		252,370
Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc. 3.500%, 02/10/18 (a)		546,820		549,639
				802,009
Commercial Services & Supplies—0.3%
ARAMARK Corp. 3.489%, 07/26/16 (a)		25,984		25,432
3.829%, 07/26/16 (a)		394,579		386,194
KAR Auction Services, Inc. 5.000%, 05/19/17 (a)		2,182,396		2,159,656
				2,571,282
Construction & Engineering—0.0%
Colfax Corp. Term Loan 0.000%, 12/07/18 (d)		190,488		190,812
Containers & Packaging—0.2%
Reynolds Group Holdings, Inc. 6.500%, 02/09/18 (a)		371,196		369,727
6.500%, 08/09/18 (a)		930,406		926,671
				1,296,398
Loan Participation—(Continued)
Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Diversified Financial Services—0.0%
MSCI, Inc. 3.750%, 03/14/17 (a)		223,153	$	224,883
Diversified Financial Services—0.0%
Trans Union LLC 4.750%, 02/10/18 (a)		178,650		178,576
Diversified Telecommunication Services—0.1%
Intelsat Jackson Holdings S.A. 5.250%, 04/02/18 (a)		1,015,763		1,010,501
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—0.0%
Flextronics International, Ltd. 0.000%, 10/01/14 (d)		182,134		178,776
Food & Staples Retailing—0.1%
BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc. 0.000%, 09/30/18 (d)		567,573		570,053
Food Products—0.2%
Del Monte Foods Co. 4.500%, 03/08/18 (a)		1,357,630		1,293,142
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—0.1%
Bausch & Lomb, Inc. 3.546%, 04/24/15 (a)		168,645		165,131
3.770%, 04/24/15 (a)		691,077		676,678
Kinetic Concepts, Inc. 0.000%, 11/04/16 (d)		64,215		64,176
				905,985
Health Care Providers & Services—1.0%
Community Health Systems, Inc. 3.960%, 01/25/17 (a)		3,380,872		3,277,130
DaVita, Inc. 4.500%, 10/20/16 (a)		297,745		298,302
HCA, Inc. 3.829%, 03/31/17 (a)		3,140,504		2,987,405
Universal Health Services, Inc. 3.750%, 11/15/16 (a)		758,095		757,686
WC Luxco S.A.R.L. 4.250%, 03/15/18 (a)		797,501		788,031
				8,108,554

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Loan Participation—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—0.2%
Ameristar Casinos, Inc. 4.000%, 04/14/18 (a)		281,181	$	280,962
Burger King Corp. 4.500%, 10/19/16 (a)		1,100,249		1,082,958
DineEquity, Inc. 4.270%, 10/19/17 (a)(d)		321,670		317,873
				1,681,793
IT Services—0.1%
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. 0.000%, 07/18/14 (d)		130,819		130,029
Moneygram International, Inc. 4.500%, 11/18/17 (a)		505,376		499,218
Moneygram Payment System Worldwide 0.000%, 11/18/17 (d)		72,718		71,718
SunGard Data Systems, Inc. 0.000%, 02/28/16 (d)		407,904		400,384
				1,101,349
Machinery—0.1%
Rexnord Corp. 2.890%, 07/19/13 (a)		450,000		443,905
Terex Corp. 5.500%, 04/28/17 (a)		361,021		363,728
				807,633
Media—0.3%
Cinemark U.S.A., Inc. 3.620%, 04/30/16 (a)		218,329		217,450
CSC Holdings, Inc. 2.044%, 03/29/16 (a)		198,421		195,983
Interactive Data Corp. 4.500%, 02/11/18 (a)		669,344		661,097
Regal Cinemas, Inc. 3.579%, 08/23/17 (a)		218,346		216,822
Sinclair Television Group, Inc. Incremental Term Loan 0.000%, 12/15/16 (d)		424,800		424,800
UPC Financing Partnership 3.872%, 12/30/16 (a)		220,000		212,300
Weather Channel (The) 4.250%, 02/11/17 (a)		463,958		463,596
				2,392,048
Metals & Mining—0.1%
American Rock Salt Holdings LLC 5.500%, 04/25/17 (a)		633,892	$	627,949
Walter Energy, Inc. 4.000%, 04/02/18 (a)		265,678		263,811
				891,760
Paper & Forest Products—0.1%
NewPage Corp. 0.000%, 03/08/13 (d)		698,163		704,272
Pharmaceuticals—0.2%
Warner Chilcott Co. LLC 4.250%, 03/15/18 (a)		1,740,003		1,719,340
Real Estate Management & Development—0.0%
Fidelity National Information Solutions, Inc. 0.000%, 07/18/16 (d)		190,332		190,511
Road & Rail—0.0%
Hertz Corp. (The) 3.750%, 03/11/18 (a)		327,525		322,460
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—0.2%
Visant Holding Corp. 5.260%, 12/22/16 (a)		1,772,823		1,667,402
Wireless Telecommunication Services—0.0%
SBA Finance 3.750%, 06/30/18 (a)		259,946		259,296
Total Loan Participation (Cost $30,755,876)				30,262,263
Convertible Bonds—0.1%
Construction Materials—0.1%
Cemex S.A.B. de C.V. 3.250%, 03/15/16 (144A)		1,000,000		656,250
Total Convertible Bonds (Cost $971,382)				656,250
Short-Term Investments — 5.5%
Discount Notes — 0.2%
Federal Home Loan Bank 0.001%, 01/03/12 (c)		1,585,000		1,585,000

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Short-Term Investments—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount		Value
Repurchase Agreement — 5.3%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $46,246,051 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $47,195,000 Federal Home Loan Bank at 0.125% due 10/25/12 with a value of $47,171,403.	$	46,246,000	$	46,246,000
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $47,831,000)				47,831,000
Total Investments — 99.0% (Cost $869,113,876#)				854,172,486
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—1.0%				8,203,490
Net Assets—100.0%			$	862,375,976

† Par amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $874,057,401. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $9,280,942 and $(29,165,857), respectively, resulting in net unrealized depreciation of $(19,884,915) for federal income tax purposes.

(a) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2011. Maturity date shown for callable securities reflects the earliest possible call date.

(b) Security is in default and/or issuer is in bankruptcy.

(c) Zero coupon bond—Interest rate represents current yield to maturity.

(d) This Senior Loan will settle after December 31, 2011, at which time the interest rate will be determined.

(144A)— Securities exempt from registration under Rule 144A of the Securities Act of 1933. These securities may be resold in transactions exempt from registration, normally to qualified institutional buyers. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of 144A securities was $77,818,377, which is 9.0% of net assets.

(AGM)— Assured Guaranty Municipal Corporation

(AUD)— Australian Dollar

(EUR)— Euro

(GBP)— British Pound

(GMTN)— Global Medium Term Note

(IDR)— Indonesian Rupiah

(ILS)— Israeli Shekel

(KRW)— South Korean Won

(MTN)— Medium Term Note

(MXN)— Mexican Peso

(MYR)— Malaysian Ringgit

(NOK)— Norwegian Krone

(PLN)— Polish Zloty

(SEK)— Swedish Krona

(SGD)— Singapore Dollar

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1			Level 2			Level 3		Total
Total U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies*	$	—		$	293,897,089		$	—	$	293,897,089
Total Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities*		—			201,701,138			—		201,701,138
Total Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities*		—			157,532,834			—		157,532,834
Total Mortgage-Backed Securities*		—			50,919,008			—		50,919,008
Total Asset-Backed Securities*		—			37,953,559			—		37,953,559
Municipals		—			33,419,345			—		33,419,345
Total Loan Participation*		—			30,262,263			—		30,262,263
Total Convertible Bonds*		—			656,250			—		656,250
Total Short-Term Investments*		—			47,831,000			—		47,831,000
Total Investments	$	—		$	854,172,486		$	—	$	854,172,486
Forward Contracts**
Forward Foreign Currency Contracts (Unrealized Appreciation)	$	—		$	4,717,402		$	—	$	4,717,402
Forward Foreign Currency Contracts (Unrealized Depreciation)		—			(2,247,809	)		—		(2,247,809	)
Total Forward Contracts	$	—		$	2,469,593		$	—	$	$2,469,593
Futures Contracts**
Futures Contracts (Unrealized Appreciation)	$	26,504		$	—		$	—	$	26,504
Futures Contracts (Unrealized Depreciation)		(216,078	)	$	—		$	—		(216,078	)
Total Futures Contracts	$	(189,574	)	$	—		$	—	$	(189,574	)
Swap Contracts**
Swap Contracts at Value (Assets)	$	—		$	2,876,347		$	—	$	2,876,347
Swap Contracts at Value (Liabilities)		—			(5,208,153	)		—		(5,208,153	)
Total Swap Contracts	$	—		$	(2,331,806	)	$	—	$	(2,331,806	)

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

** Derivative instruments such as forwards and futures contracts are valued on the unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the instrument. Swap contracts are presented at value.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)	$	807,926,486
Repurchase Agreement		46,246,000
Cash		67,595
Cash denominated in foreign currencies (b)		470,138
Cash collateral (e)		2,569,430
Receivable for investments sold		561,910
Swaps at market value (c)		2,876,347
Receivable for shares sold		632,022
Interest receivable		5,768,876
Swap interest receivable		33,750
Unrealized appreciation on forward currency exchange contracts		4,717,402
Total assets		871,869,956
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		1,417,873
Shares redeemed		53,237
Variation margin on financial futures contracts		29,028
Unrealized depreciation on forward currency exchange contracts		2,247,809
Swaps at market value (d)		5,208,153
Swap interest		74,557
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		338,472
Distribution and service fees—Class B		10,831
Administration fees		3,730
Custodian and accounting fees		23,539
Deferred trustees’ fees		5,674
Other expenses		81,077
Total liabilities		9,493,980
Net Assets	$	862,375,976
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	871,778,979
Accumulated net realized loss		(12,730,092	)
Unrealized depreciation on investments, futures contracts, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		(11,209,407	)
Undistributed net investment income		14,536,496
Net Assets	$	862,375,976
Net Assets
Class A	$	809,867,788
Class B		52,508,188
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		81,982,404
Class B		5,323,499
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	9.88
Class B		9.86

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreement, was $822,867,876.

(b) Identified cost of cash denominated in foreign currencies was $478,707.

(c) Swap premium paid was $2,527,838.

(d) Swap premium received was $6,360,836.

(e) Includes collateral of $2,395,000 for swaps and $174,430 for futures.

Statement of Operations

For the Period Ended December 31, 2011*

Investment Income
Interest (a)	$	10,349,227
Total investment income		10,349,227
Expenses
Management fees		2,638,140
Administration fees		27,030
Custodian and accounting fees		175,621
Distribution and service fees—Class B		46,259
Audit and tax services		73,075
Legal		75,139
Trustees’ fees and expenses		24,659
Shareholder reporting		73,861
Insurance		2,672
Organizational expense		2,500
Miscellaneous		8,578
Total expenses		3,147,534
Less management fee waiver		(173,960	)
Net expenses		2,973,574
Net investment income		7,375,653
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments, Futures Contracts, Swaps Contracts and Foreign Currency Transactions
Net realized loss on:
Investments		(2,428,627	)
Futures contracts		(1,584,851	)
Swap contracts		(1,488,527	)
Foreign currency transactions		(72,584	)
Net realized loss on investments, futures contracts, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		(5,574,589	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on:
Investments		(14,941,390	)
Futures contracts		(189,574	)
Swap contracts		1,501,192
Foreign currency transactions		2,420,365
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments, futures contracts, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		(11,209,407	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments, futures contracts, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		(16,783,996	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(9,408,343	)

* Commencement of operations was 4/29/2011.

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $113,028.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio

Statement of Changes in Net Assets

	Period Ended December 31, 2011*
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	7,375,653
Net realized loss on investments, futures contracts, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		(5,574,589	)
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments, futures contracts, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		(11,209,407	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from operations		(9,408,343	)
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		871,784,319
Net Increase in Net Assets		862,375,976
Net assets at end of period	$	862,375,976
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	14,536,496

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Period Ended December 31, 2011*
	Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		84,708,439		$	845,972,297
Redemptions		(2,726,035	)		(27,063,188	)
Net increase		81,982,404		$	818,909,109
Class B
Sales		6,162,089		$	61,177,163
Redemptions		(838,590	)		(8,301,953	)
Net increase		5,323,499		$	52,875,210
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	871,784,319

* Commencement of operations was 4/29/2011.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Period Ended December 31,
	2011(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.00
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.09
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments		(0.21	)
Total from investment operations		(0.12	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital Gains		0.00
Total distributions		0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	9.88
Total Return (%)		(1.20	)**
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average Net Assets (%)		0.59	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)		0.56	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.40	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		75.5
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	809.9
	Class B
	Period Ended December 31,
	2011(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.00
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.09
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments		(0.23	)
Total from investment operations		(0.14	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00
Total distributions		0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	9.86
Total Return (%)		(1.40	)**
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.84	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)		0.81	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.37	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		75.5
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	52.5

* Annualized.

** Not annualized.

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Commencement of operations was 4/29/2011.

(c) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio (the “Portfolio”) (commenced operations on April 29, 2011), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A and B Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Swap contracts are marked-to-market daily based on quotations and prices supplied by market makers, broker-dealers and pricing services. Such quotations and prices are derived utilizing significant observable data, including the underlying investments. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns will remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service for three fiscal years after the returns are filed.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to futures transactions, foreign currency transactions, swap transactions, options transactions, premium amortization adjustments, paydown transactions, contingent payment debt instrument adjustments, forward transactions, deferred trustees’ compensation, and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

Foreign Currency Translation - The books and records of the Portfolio are maintained in U.S. dollars. The values of securities, currencies and other assets and liabilities denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars are translated into U.S. dollars based upon foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period. Purchases and sales of investment securities, income and expenses are translated on the respective dates of such transactions. Since the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, it is not practical to isolate that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates from that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities. Such fluctuations are included in the net realized and unrealized gain or loss on investments.

Net realized foreign exchange gains or losses arise from activity in forward foreign currency exchange contracts, sales of foreign currency, currency gains or losses realized between the trade and settlement dates on securities transactions, and the difference between the amounts of dividends, interest, and foreign withholding taxes recorded by the Portfolio and the U.S. dollar equivalent of the amounts actually received or paid by the Portfolio. Gains and losses attributable to foreign currency exchange rates on sales of securities are recorded as Net realized gains and losses on investments. Net unrealized foreign exchange gains and losses arise from changes in the value of assets and liabilities, other than investment securities, resulting from changes in foreign exchange rates.

Forward Commitments and When-Issued and Delayed-Delivery Securities - The Portfolio may purchase securities on a when-issued or delayed delivery basis and may purchase or sell securities on a forward commitment basis. Settlement of such transactions normally occurs within a month or more after the purchase or sale commitment is made. The Portfolio may purchase securities under such conditions only with the intention of actually acquiring them, but may enter into a separate agreement to sell the securities before the settlement date. Since the value of securities purchased may fluctuate prior to settlement, the Portfolio may be required to pay more at settlement than the security is worth. In addition, the purchaser is not entitled to any of the interest earned prior to settlement. Upon making a commitment to purchase a security on a when-issued, delayed delivery or forward commitment basis, the Portfolio will hold liquid assets in a segregated account at the Portfolio’s custodian bank worth at least the equivalent of the amount due. The liquid assets will be monitored on a daily basis and adjusted as necessary to maintain the necessary value.

Loan Participations - The Portfolio may invest in loans arranged through private negotiation between one or more financial institutions. The Portfolio’s investment in any such loan may be in the form of a participation in or an assignment of the loan. In connection with purchasing participations or an assignment, the Portfolio generally will have no right to enforce compliance by the borrower with the terms of the loan agreement relating to the loan, nor any rights of set-off against the borrower and the Portfolio may not benefit directly from any collateral supporting the loan in which it has purchased the participation or assignment.

Mortgage Related and Other Asset Backed Securities - The Portfolio may invest in mortgage related or other asset-backed securities. These securities may include mortgage pass-through securities, collateralized mortgaged obligations (“CMOs”), commercial mortgage-backed securities, mortgage dollar rolls, CMO residuals, stripped mortgage backed securities (“SMBS”) and other securities that directly or indirectly represent a participation in, or are secured by or payable from, mortgage loans on real property or other receivables. The value of some mortgage or asset-backed securities may be particularly sensitive to changes in prevailing interest rates. Early repayment of principal on some mortgage-related securities may expose the Portfolio to a lower rate of return upon reinvestment of principal. The value of these securities may fluctuate in response to the market’s perception of the creditworthiness of the issuers. Additionally, although mortgages and mortgage-related securities are generally supported by some form of government or private guarantee and/or insurance, there is no assurance that private guarantors or insurers will meet their obligations.

In one type of SMBS, one class receives all of the interest from the mortgage assets (the interest-only or “IO” class), while the other class will receive all of the principal (the principal-only or “PO” class). Payments received for the IOs are included in interest income on the Statement of Operations of the Portfolio. Because principal will not be received at the maturity of an IO, adjustments are made to the book value of the security until maturity. These adjustments are included in interest income on the Statement of Operations of the Portfolio. Payments received for POs are treated as reductions to the cost and par value of the securities. Details of mortgage related and other asset-backed securities held by the Portfolio are included in the Portfolio’s Schedule of Investments.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

The Portfolio may invest a significant portion of its assets in securities of issuers that hold mortgage and asset-backed securities and direct investments in securities backed by commercial and residential mortgage loans and other financial assets. The value and related income of these securities are sensitive to changes in economic conditions, including delinquencies and/or defaults, and may be negatively impacted by increased volatility of market prices and periods of illiquidity.

High Yield Debt Securities - The Portfolio may invest in high yield debt securities, or “junk bonds,” which are securities that are rated below “investment grade” or, if not rated, are of equivalent quality. A portfolio with high yield debt securities generally will be exposed to greater market risk and credit risk than a portfolio that invests only in investment grade debt securities because issuers of high yield debt securities are less secure financially, are more likely to default on their obligations, and their securities are more sensitive to interest rate changes and downturns in the economy. In addition, the secondary market for lower-rated debt securities may not be as liquid as that for more highly rated debt securities. As a result, the Portfolio’s Subadviser may find it more difficult to value lower-rated debt securities or sell them and may have to sell them at prices significantly lower than the values assigned to them by the Portfolio.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with Franklin Advisers, Inc. (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the period ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$2,638,140		0.520	%	First $100 Million
		0.510	%	$100 Million to $250 Million
		0.500	%	$250 Million to $500 Million
		0.490	%	$500 Million to $1 Billion
		0.470	%	$1 Billion to $1.5 Billion
		0.450	%	Over $1.5 Billion

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Management Fee Waiver - The subadvisory fee the Adviser pays to the Subadviser in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio is calculated based on the aggregate average daily net assets of the Portfolio and certain other portfolios of the Trust that are managed by the Subadviser and/or its affiliates.

From May 1, 2011 through May 23, 2011, the Adviser contractually agreed to waive a portion of the management fee reflecting the difference, if any, between the subadvisory fee payable by the Adviser to the Subadviser that was calculated based solely on the assets of the Portfolio and the fee that was calculated when the Portfolio’s assets were aggregated with those of the Met/Franklin Income Portfolio, Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio and Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio, each a series of the Trust. Over the same period of time, the assets of Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio were included on a voluntary basis for purposing of determining the amount of the management fee waiver. Effective May 24, 2011, the assets of Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio were contractually added to the calculation of the management fee waiver.

Amounts waived for the period ended December 31, 2011 are shown as a management fee waiver in the Statement of Operations.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Expense Limitation Agreement - The Adviser has entered into an expense limitation agreement with the Trust (“Expense Limitation Agreement”) in the interest of limiting expenses of the Portfolio. The Expense Limitation Agreement shall continue in effect with respect to the Portfolio until October 31, 2012. Pursuant to that Expense Limitation Agreement, the Adviser has agreed to waive or limit its fees and to assume other expenses so that the total annual operating expenses of the Portfolio other than interest, taxes, brokerage commissions, other expenditures which are capitalized or expensed in accordance with GAAP, other extraordinary expenses not incurred in the ordinary course of the Portfolio’s business and acquired fund fees and expenses but including amounts payable pursuant to a plan adopted in accordance with Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act, are limited to the following expense ratios as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets:

Maximum Expense Ratio under current     Expense Limitation  Agreement
Class A	Class B
0.75%		1.00	%

If in any year in which the Management Agreement is still in effect, the estimated aggregate operating expenses of the Portfolio for the fiscal year are less than the Maximum Expense Ratios for that year, subject to approval by the Trust’s Board, the Adviser shall be entitled to reimbursement by the Portfolio to the extent that the charge does not cause the expenses in such subsequent year to exceed the Maximum Expense Ratios as stated above. The Portfolio is not obligated to repay any expense paid by the Adviser more than five years after the end of the fiscal year in which such expense was incurred.

Distribution Agreement and Plan - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A and Class B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B distribution plan provides that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% of the average net daily assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B Shares. However, under the Class B distribution agreement, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B distribution plan are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the period ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B distribution plan and distribution agreement, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the period ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$801,721,226	$	573,623,167	$	496,052,118	$	50,576,048

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - The Portfolio may enter into forward foreign currency exchange contracts to obtain investment exposure, enhance return or hedge or protect its portfolio holdings against the risk of future movements in certain foreign currency exchange rates. When entering into these contracts, the Portfolio agrees to receive or deliver a fixed quantity of foreign currency for an agreed-upon price on an agreed upon future date. These contracts are valued daily and the Portfolio’s net equity therein, representing unrealized gain or loss on the contracts as measured by the difference between the forward foreign exchange rates at the dates of entry into the contracts and the forward foreign exchange rates at the value date, is included in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. When a contract is closed, the Portfolio recognizes a realized gain or loss equal to the difference between the value of the contract at the time it was opened and the value at the time it was closed.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments - continued

Realized and unrealized gains and losses on forward foreign currency exchange contracts are included in the Statement of Operations. These contracts involve market and/or credit risk in excess of the amount recognized in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

The use of forward foreign currency exchange contracts does not eliminate fluctuations in the underlying prices of the securities of the Portfolio, but it does establish a rate of exchange that can be achieved in the future. Although forward foreign currency exchange contracts may limit the risk of loss due to a decline in the value of the currency holdings, they also limit any potential gain that might result should the value of the currency increase. In addition, the Portfolio could be exposed to risks if the counterparties to the contracts are unable to meet the terms of the contracts. The Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit risk, as opposed to investment and other types of risk, in respect of foreign currency forward contracts is typically the value of the currency the Portfolio is due from its counterparty at settlement plus the value of the currency paid, if any, to the Portfolio’s counterparty.

Futures Contracts - The Portfolio may buy and sell futures contracts (on recognized exchanges) as a hedge, to maintain investment exposure to a target asset class or to enhance return. The Portfolio may be subject to fluctuations in equity prices, interest rates, commodity prices and foreign currency exchange rates in the normal course of pursuing its investment objective. Futures contracts are standardized agreements to buy or sell a security, or deliver a final cash settlement price in connection with an index, interest rate, currency, or other asset. The Portfolio must deposit an amount (“initial margin”) equal to a certain percentage of the face value of the futures contract. The initial margin may be in the form of cash or securities which is returned when the Portfolio’s obligations under the contract have been satisfied. If cash is deposited as the initial margin, it is shown as “restricted cash” on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Futures contracts are marked-to-market daily and subsequent payments (“variation margin”) are made or received by the Portfolio depending on the daily fluctuations in the value of the futures contracts. These amounts are reflected as receivables or payables on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Risks of entering into futures contracts (and related options) include the possibility that the market for these instruments may be illiquid and that a change in the value of the contract or option may not correlate perfectly with changes in the value of the underlying instrument. Futures contracts are exchange traded and the exchange’s clearinghouse, as counterparty to all exchange traded futures, guarantees the futures contracts against default.

Swap Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into swap contracts. Swap contracts are derivatives agreements to exchange the return generated by one instrument for the return generated by another instrument. The payment streams are calculated by reference to a specified index and agreed upon notional amount. The term “specified index” includes, but is not limited to, currencies, fixed interest rates, prices and total return on interest rate indices, fixed income indices, stock indices and commodity indices (as well as amounts derived from arithmetic operations on these indices). A Portfolio will usually enter into swaps on a net basis, i.e., the two payment streams are netted out in a cash settlement on the payment date or dates specified in the instrument, with the Portfolio receiving or paying, as the case may be, only the net amount of the two payments. The Portfolio’s obligations under a swap agreement will be accrued daily (offset against any amounts owing to the Portfolio) and any accrued but unpaid net amounts owed to a swap counterparty will be covered by designating the segregation, either on its records or with the Trust’s custodian, of cash or other liquid assets, to avoid any potential leveraging of the Portfolio. The Portfolio may enter into swap transactions with counterparties that are approved by the investment adviser in accordance with guidelines established by the Board. These guidelines provide for a minimum credit rating for each counterparty and various credit enhancement techniques (for example, collateralization of amounts due from counterparties) to limit exposure to counterparties that have lower credit ratings.

An index swap is an agreement to swap cash flows on a notional amount based on changes in the values of the reference indices.

Currency Swaps: A currency swap is an agreement to exchange cash flows on a notional amount of two or more currencies based on the relative value differential among them. Such swaps may involve initial and final exchanges that correspond to the agreed upon notional amount. Currency swaps usually involve the delivery of the entire principal value of one designated currency in exchange for the other designated currency. Therefore, the entire principal value of a currency swap is subject to the risk that the other party to the swap will default on its contractual delivery obligations. If there is a default by the counterparty, the Portfolio may have contractual remedies pursuant to the agreements related to the transaction.

Credit Default Swaps: The Portfolio is subject to credit risk in the normal course of pursuing its investment objectives. The Portfolio may enter into credit default swaps to manage its exposure to the market or certain sectors of the market, to reduce its risk exposure to defaults of corporate and sovereign issuers, or to create exposure to corporate or sovereign issuers to which it is not otherwise exposed. As the seller in a credit default swap contract, the Portfolio would be required to pay the par (or other agreed upon) value of a referenced debt obligation or index to the counterparty in the event of a default by a third party, such as a U.S. or foreign corporate issuer, on the debt obligation. In return, the Portfolio would receive from the counterparty an upfront or periodic stream of payments over the term of the contract provided that no event of default has occurred. If no default occurs, the Portfolio would keep the stream of payments and would have no payment obligations. An upfront payment received by the Portfolio is recorded as a liability on the books. An upfront payment made by the Portfolio is recorded as an asset on the books. As the seller, the Portfolio would be subject to investment exposure on the notional amount of the swap. The Portfolio may also purchase credit default swap contracts in order to hedge against the risk of default of debt securities held in its portfolio. This would involve the risk that the investment may expire worthless and would only generate income in the event of an actual default by the issuer of the underlying obligation (as opposed to a credit downgrade or other indication of financial instability). It would also involve credit risk—the seller may fail to satisfy its

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments - continued

payment obligations to the Portfolio in the event of a default. The Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty risk, either as the protection seller or as the protection buyer, is the notional amount or unrealized appreciation of the contract, respectively. This risk is mitigated by having a master netting arrangement between the Portfolio and the counterparty and by the posting of collateral by the counterparty to the Portfolio to cover the Portfolio’s exposure to the counterparty.

Implied credit spreads, represented in absolute terms, utilized in determining the market value of credit default swap agreements on corporate issues or sovereign issues of an emerging country as of period end are disclosed in Note 8 to the Notes to Financials Statements and serve as an indicator of the status of the payment/performance risk and represent the likelihood or risk of default for the credit derivative. The implied credit spread of a particular referenced entity or index also reflects the cost of buying/selling protection and may include upfront payments required to be made to enter into the agreement. For credit default swap agreements on asset-backed securities and credit indices, the quoted market prices and resulting values serve as the indicator of the current status of the payment/performance risk. Wider credit spreads represent a deterioration of the referenced entity’s credit soundness and a greater likelihood or risk of default or other credit event occurring as defined under the terms of the agreement.

The maximum potential amount of future payments (undiscounted) that a Portfolio as a seller of protection could be required to make under a credit default swap agreement would be an amount equal to the notional amount of the agreement. Notional amounts of all credit default swap agreements outstanding as of December 31, 2011 for which a Portfolio is the seller of protection are disclosed in Note 8 to the Notes to Financials Statements. These potential amounts would be partially offset by any recovery values of the respective referenced obligations, upfront payments received upon entering into the agreement, or net amounts received from the settlement of buy protection credit default swap agreements entered into by a Portfolio for the same referenced entity or entities.

Swap agreements are marked to market daily. The change in value, if any, is recorded as unrealized gain or loss in the Statement of Operations. A liquidation payment received or made at the termination of the swap is recorded as realized gain or loss in the Statement of Operations. Net periodic payments are included as part of realized gain (loss) on the Statement of Operations.

The swaps in which the Portfolio may engage may include instruments under which one party pays a single or periodic fixed amount(s) (or premium), and the other party pays periodic amounts based on the movement of a specified index. Swaps do not involve the delivery of securities, other underlying assets, or principal. The Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit risk, as opposed to investment and other types of risk, in respect of swaps is typically the discounted net value of the cash flows to be received from the counterparty over the contract’s remaining life to the extent that such amount is positive, plus the cost of entering into a similar transaction with another counterparty, if possible.

The use of swaps is a highly specialized activity that involves investment techniques and risks different from those associated with ordinary portfolio securities transactions. If the Adviser or Subadviser is incorrect in its forecasts of market values, interest rates, and currency exchange rates, the investment performance of the Portfolio would be less favorable than it would have been if this investment technique were not used.

At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had the following derivatives, categorized by risk exposure:

	Asset Derivatives			Liability Derivatives
Risk Exposure	Statement of Assets and Liabilities Location	Fair Value		Statement of Assets and Liabilities Location	Fair Value
Interest Rate	Unrealized appreciation on futures contracts*	$	26,504	Unrealized depreciation on futures contracts*	$	216,078
Credit	Swaps at market value		2,876,347	Swaps at market value		5,208,153
Currency	Unrealized appreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts		4,717,402	Unrealized depreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts		2,247,809
Total		$	7,620,253		$	7,672,040

* Includes cumulative appreciation/depreciation of futures contracts as reported in the notes to financial statements. Only the current day’s variation margin is reported within the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

Transactions in derivative instruments during the period ended December 31, 2011, were as follows:

Statement of Operations Location - Net Realized Gain (Loss)	Credit			Interest Rate			Currency		Total
Future contracts	$	—		$	(1,584,851	)	$	—	$	(1,584,851	)
Swap contracts		(1,488,527	)		—			—		(1,488,527	)
	$	(1,488,527	)	$	(1,584,851	)	$	—	$	(3,073,378	)

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments - continued

Statement of Operations Location - Net Change in Unrealized Gain (Loss)	Credit		Interest Rate			Currency		Total
Foreign currency transactions	$	—	$	—		$	2,469,593	$	2,469,593
Future contracts		—		(189,574	)		—		(189,574	)
Swap contracts		1,501,192		—			—		1,501,192
	$	1,501,192	$	(189,574	)	$	2,469,593	$	3,781,211

For the period ended December 31, 2011, the average amount or number per contract outstanding for each derivative type was as follows:

Derivative Description	Average Notional or Face Amount (a)
Foreign currency transactions	$	80,630,358
Future contracts long		56,750,000
Future contracts short		(21,550,000	)
Swap contracts		87,268,829

(a) Averages are based on activity levels during 2011.

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts to Buy:

Settlement Date	Counterparty	Contracts to Buy			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Unrealized (Depreciation)
5/4/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		1,129,880,000	CLP	$	2,145,774		2,350,000	$	(204,226	)
5/9/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		1,133,875,000	CLP		2,152,461		2,350,000		(197,539	)
5/4/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		1,260,000	EUR		1,636,553		1,695,078		(58,525	)
5/4/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		307,000	EUR		398,748		400,850		(2,102	)
5/16/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		2,134,000	EUR		2,772,282		2,879,620		(107,338	)
5/25/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		1,824,000	EUR		2,369,901		2,461,397		(91,496	)
5/7/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		119,574,000	INR		2,202,907		2,520,000		(317,093	)
5/7/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		118,818,000	INR		2,188,979		2,520,000		(331,021	)
5/4/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		128,788,870	PHP		2,917,896		3,010,000		(92,104	)
5/7/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		129,673,810	PHP		2,937,422		3,010,000		(72,578	)
5/4/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		1,623,132	SGD		1,254,010		1,330,000		(75,990	)
5/7/2012	Morgan Stanley		1,629,622	SGD		1,259,067		1,330,000		(70,933	)
5/18/2012	Morgan Stanley		3,496,264	SGD		2,701,593		2,820,000		(118,407	)
Net Unrealized Depreciation									$	(1,739,352	)

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts to Sell:

Settlement Date	Counterparty	Contracts to Deliver			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
5/4/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		8,550,000	EUR	$	11,105,184		12,549,690	$	1,444,506
5/7/2012	Citibank N.A.		456,944	EUR		593,532		672,028		78,496

25

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - continued

Settlement Date	Counterparty	Contracts to Deliver			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
5/7/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		2,350,000	EUR	$	3,052,448		3,441,105	$	388,657
5/7/2012	Morgan Stanley Co., Inc.		6,170,000	EUR		8,014,301		9,022,083		1,007,782
5/10/2012	Citibank N.A.		2,909,965	EUR		3,779,976		4,121,093		341,117
5/10/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		300,000	EUR		389,693		422,238		32,545
5/16/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		2,134,000	EUR		2,772,282		2,993,575		221,293
5/25/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		3,772,396	EUR		4,901,428		5,240,612		339,184
6/6/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		500,796	EUR		650,803		715,358		64,555
6/11/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		187,000	EUR		243,033		270,901		27,868
7/5/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		1,455,100	EUR		1,891,833		2,080,211		188,378
8/1/2012	Barclays Bank plc		1,046,650	EUR		1,361,508		1,483,312		121,804
8/8/2012	Citibank N.A.		46,169	EUR		60,066		64,819		4,753
8/9/2012	Citibank N.A.		5,933	EUR		7,719		8,348		629
8/24/2012	Barclays Bank plc		17,272	EUR		22,478		24,778		2,300
8/29/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		46,238	EUR		60,180		66,194		6,014
8/30/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		1,320,000	EUR		1,718,060		1,896,840		178,780
9/6/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		95,000	EUR		123,665		135,290		11,625
9/12/2012	Barclays Bank plc		30,815	EUR		40,118		43,079		2,961
9/14/2012	Barclays Bank plc		152,186	EUR		198,137		208,164		10,027
9/17/2012	UBS AG		87,929	EUR		114,485		120,524		6,039
9/19/2012	Barclays Bank plc		31,978	EUR		41,637		44,328		2,691
9/24/2012	Barclays Bank plc		21,514	EUR		28,015		29,270		1,255
10/22/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		2,914,236	EUR		3,797,279		4,011,154		213,875
11/7/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		290,000	EUR		378,018		398,286		20,268
5/9/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		283,178,000	JPY		3,687,735		3,500,000		(187,735	)
5/9/2012	Morgan Stanley Co., Inc.		281,655,500	JPY		3,667,908		3,500,000		(167,908	)
5/17/2012	Morgan Stanley Co., Inc.		265,900,000	JPY		3,463,425		3,310,611		(152,814	)
Net Unrealized Appreciation									$	4,208,945

CLP— Chilean Peso

EUR— Euro

INR— Indian Rupee

JPY— Japanese Yen

PHP— Philippine Peso

SGD— Singapore Dollar

26

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

7. Futures Contracts

The futures contracts outstanding as of December 31, 2011, and the description and unrealized appreciation (depreciation) were as follows:

Futures Contracts - Long	Exchange	Expiration Date		Number of Contracts			Contract Amount			Valuation as of December 31, 2011			Unrealized Appreciation
U.S. Treasury Note 2 Year Futures	Chicago Board of Trade		03/30/2012		430		$	94,808,653		$	94,835,157		$	26,504
Futures Contracts - Short	Exchange	Expiration Date		Number of Contracts			Contract Amount			Valuation as of December 31, 2011			Unrealized Depreciation
U.S. Treasury Note 10 Year Futures	Chicago Board of Trade		03/21/2012		(131	)	$	(17,025,579	)	$	(17,177,375	)	$	(151,796	)
U.S. Treasury Note 5 Year Futures	Chicago Board of Trade		03/30/2012		(150	)		(18,424,390	)		(18,488,672	)		(64,282	)
Net Unrealized Depreciation													$	(216,078	)

8. Swap Agreements

Credit Default Swaps on Corporate and Sovereign Issuers - Buy Protection (a)

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal (Pay) Rate			Maturity Date		Counterparty	Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2011 (b)			Notional Amount (c)			Market Value			Upfront Premium Paid/ (Received)			Unrealized Appreciation/ Depreciation
Bank of America Corp. 6.250%, due 04/15/2012		(1.000	%)		09/20/16	Credit Suisse Group AG		4.087	%		USD	4,000,000	$	491,228		$	489,813		$	1,415
Centex Corp. 5.250%, due 06/15/2015		(5.000	%)		06/20/15	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		3.306	%		USD	3,000,000		(162,072	)		(137,578	)		(24,494	)
Centex Corp. 5.250%, due 06/15/2015		(5.000	%)		06/20/16	Credit Suisse Group AG		3.598	%		USD	6,000,000		(333,045	)		(737,832	)		404,787
Caesars Entertainment Operating Co., Inc. 5.625%, due 06/01/2015		(5.000	%)		06/20/16	Credit Suisse Group AG		23.068	%		USD	3,500,000		1,687,261			1,242,500			444,761
Embarq Corp. 7.082%, due 06/01/2016		(5.000	%)		06/20/16	Credit Suisse Group AG		2.123	%		USD	2,071,000		(249,755	)		(247,588	)		(2,167	)
Ford Motor Credit Co., LLC 7.250%, due 10/25/2011		(5.000	%)		06/20/14	Citibank N.A.		2.554	%		USD	6,000,000		(343,715	)		(505,697	)		161,982
Hilton Worldwide, Inc. 4.957%, due 11/15/2013		(5.000	%)		12/20/13	Citibank N.A.		2.864	%		USD	1,000,000		(40,990	)		(40,017	)		(973	)
Hilton Worldwide, Inc. 4.957%, due 11/15/2013		(5.000	%)		12/20/13	Credit Suisse Group AG		2.864	%		USD	7,000,000		(286,927	)		(263,676	)		(23,251	)
Intelsat SA 6.500%, due 11/01/2013		(5.000	%)		12/20/13	Credit Suisse Group AG		2.203	%		USD	2,900,000		(156,517	)		(150,955	)		(5,562	)
Liberty Media Corp. 3.125%, due 03/30/2023		(5.000	%)		06/20/13	Credit Suisse Group AG		1.474	%		USD	6,545,000		(337,091	)		(324,337	)		(12,754	)
Republic of Ireland 4.250%, due 04/18/2020		(1.000	%)		06/20/15	Credit Suisse Group AG		7.544	%		EUR	3,000,000		697,858			795,525			(97,667	)
Toll Brothers, Inc. 5.150%, due 05/15/2015		(5.000	%)		06/20/15	Credit Suisse Group AG		1.391	%		USD	3,000,000		(364,145	)		(330,262	)		(33,883	)
Toll Brothers, Inc. 5.150%, due 05/15/2015		(5.000	%)		06/20/15	Credit Suisse Group AG		1.391	%		USD	3,000,000		(364,145	)		(316,024	)		(48,121	)
													$	237,945		$	(526,128	)	$	764,073

27

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

8. Swap Agreements - Continued

Credit Default Swaps on Corporate and Sovereign Issues - Sell Protection (d)

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal (Pay) Rate			Maturity Date		Counterparty	Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2011 (b)			Notional Amount (c)			Market Value			Upfront Premium Paid/ (Received)			Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
Celanese US Holdings LLC		1.800	%		06/20/16	Credit Suisse Group AG		1.176	%		USD	500,000	$	(2,009	)	$	0		$	(2,009	)
6.500%, 10/13/2016
General Electric Capital Corp.		1.000	%		12/20/13	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		1.895	%		USD	6,200,000		(107,100	)		(254,499	)		147,399
5.625%, 09/15/2017
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.		1.000	%		09/20/16	Credit Suisse Group AG		4.542	%		USD	4,000,000		(553,944	)		(564,362	)		10,418
5.000%, due 01/15/2015
Republic of Lithuania		1.000	%		06/20/16	Credit Suisse Group AG		3.518	%		USD	400,000		(40,674	)		(18,566	)		(22,108	)
4.500%, 03/05/2013
													$	(703,727	)	$	(837,427	)	$	133,700

Credit Default Swaps on Credit Indices - Sell Protection (d)

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal (Pay) Rate			Maturity Date		Counterparty	Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2011 (b)			Notional Amount (c)			Market Value			Upfront Premium Paid/ (Received)			Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
Markit CDX North America High Yield Index Series 17		5.000	%		12/20/16	Citibank N.A.		6.799	%		USD	12,250,000	$	(859,450	)	$	(1,179,062	)	$	319,612
Markit CDX North America, Series 17		1.000	%		12/20/16	Citibank N.A.		2.127	%		USD	11,000,000		(473,695	)		(472,903	)		(792	)
Markit CDX North America, Series 17		1.000	%		12/20/16	Citibank N.A.		2.127	%		USD	5,000,000		(215,316	)		(211,228	)		(4,088	)
Markit LCDX North America, Series 17		2.500	%		12/20/16	Credit Suisse Group AG		—			USD	5,000,000		(317,563	)		(606,250	)		288,687
													$	(1,866,024	)	$	(2,469,443	)	$	603,419

EUR— Euro

USD— United States Dollar

(a) If the Portfolio is a buyer of protection and a credit event occurs, as defined under the terms of that particular swap agreement, the Portfolio will either (i) receive from the seller of protection an amount equal to the notional amount of the swap and deliver the referenced obligation or underlying securities comprising the referenced index or (ii) receive a net settlement amount in the form of cash or securities equal to the notional amount of the swap less the recovery value of the referenced obligation or underlying securities comprising the referenced index.

(b) Implied credit spreads, represented in absolute terms, utilized in determining the market value of credit default swap agreements on corporate issues or sovereign issues of an emerging country as of period end serve as an indicator of the current status of the payment/performance risk and represent the likelihood or risk of default for the credit derivative. The implied credit spread of a particular referenced entity reflects the cost of buying/selling protection and may include upfront payments required to be made to enter into the agreement. Wider credit spreads represent a deterioration of the referenced entity’s credit soundness and a greater likelihood or risk of default or other credit event occurring as defined under the terms of the agreement. A credit spread identified as “Defaulted” indicates a credit event has occurred for the referenced entity or obligation.

28

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

8. Swap Agreements - continued

(c) The maximum potential amount of future undiscounted payments that the Portfolio could be required to make under a credit default swap contract would be the notional amount of the contract. These potential amounts would be partially offset by any recovery values of the referenced debt obligation or net amounts received from the settlement purchased protection credit default swap contracts entered into by the Portfolio for the same referenced debt obligation.

(d) If the Portfolio is a seller of protection and a credit event occurs, as defined under the terms of that particular swap agreement, the Portfolio will either (i) pay to the buyer of protection an amount equal to the notional amount of the swap and take delivery of the referenced obligation or underlying securities comprising the referenced index or (ii) pay a net settlement amount in the form of cash or securities equal to the notional amount of the swap less the recovery value of the referenced obligation or underlying securities comprising the referenced index.

9. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

10. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

11. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the period ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Ordinary Income		Long-Term Capital Gain		Total
$	—	$	—	$	—

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Depreciation			Loss Carryforwards			Total
$20,008,264	$	—	$	(21,414,035	)	$	(7,991,557	)	$	(9,397,328	)

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses.

As of December 31, 2011, the post-enactment accumulated capital losses were $(7,991,557).

29

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

12. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

30

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”), as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations, the statement of changes in net assets, and the financial highlights for the period from April 29, 2011 (commencement of operations) to December 31, 2011. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audit included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, and the results of its operations, the changes in its net assets, and the financial highlights for the period from April 29, 2011 (commencement of operations) to December 31, 2011, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 28, 2012

31

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

32

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

33

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

34

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio

Managed by Franklin Mutual Advisers, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A and B shares of the Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio returned -0.26% and -0.55%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Index¹, returned 2.11%.

Market Environment/Conditions

Stocks declined globally in 2011 as deepening sovereign debt, political paralysis and economic growth concerns led to escalating investor anxiety and severe market volatility. Stocks entered the year supported by positive momentum in corporate earnings and renewed economic stimulus measures in the developed world. However, a number of events interrupted the market’s rise early in 2011, including a severe natural disaster and nuclear crisis in Japan and populist uprisings across the oil-and-gas-producing regions of the Middle East and North Africa. Global markets recovered quickly from these setbacks but soon faced more significant turmoil as Europe’s sovereign debt crisis worsened in the summer. Portugal, Greece and Ireland received bailouts and had their credit ratings downgraded to junk grade, while rising bond yields in the larger economies of Italy and Spain, and eventually in the critical core economies of Germany and France, threatened the survival of the European Monetary Union. The United States’(“U.S.”) sovereign debt issues and political dysfunction, accompanied by the downgrade of its AAA credit rating to AA+, further pressured investor sentiment during the summer months. Additionally, the precarious state of the global banking system as well as emerging signs of a renewed global economic slowdown and possible hard landing in China weighed on the markets.

Despite these global challenges, corporate profits remained remarkably resilient, some signs of U.S. economic improvement emerged toward year-end, and European policymakers ultimately stepped up their response to their sovereign debt and banking crisis. Greek and Italian prime ministers were replaced with non-politicians tasked with arresting a debt spiral, the European Central Bank cut short-term interest rates and expanded bank lending facilities, and six key global central banks agreed to lower Dollar funding costs for Europe’s distressed commercial banks. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve Board increased purchases of long-dated bonds to reduce key borrowing costs and hinted at “additional policy accommodation.” Chinese policymakers lowered commercial bank reserve requirements and the International Monetary Fund revamped its credit line and eased its lending terms. Commodities initially rallied due to the coordinated monetary stimulus, but most ultimately declined as global economic prospects weakened. Gold and oil, however, made annual gains. In currency markets, the Euro declined with escalating weakness at year-end, while the Dollar ultimately rose after a late surge. Amid general global market declines, perceived safe-haven currencies such as the Japanese Yen and Swiss Franc rallied strongly, and U.S. Treasuries posted their best one-year return since 2008.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

During a highly volatile year for global stock markets in general, the Portfolio was negatively impacted by several holdings, including Bank of America, computer and printer manufacturer Hewlett Packard, and industrial conglomerate ThyssenKrupp (Germany).

Bank of America shares declined in 2011 as investors reacted to the company’s potential exposure to large mortgage-related losses. There was also a growing concern that related losses might force the company into a dilutive, capital-raising scenario. Bank of America also faced a very difficult general operating environment in 2011. Low interest rates, weak lending, the impact of new consumer rules on fees, and a drop-off in capital markets activity all pressured earnings and the stock price. Like many other Financial stocks, Bank of America was also impacted by contagion fears from Europe, changes in capital requirements and uncertainty over the impact of new regulations such as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Although we still believed this holding held value, we exited our position in Bank of America and reallocated the capital proceeds to companies where we thought better risk-reward characteristics existed.

The Portfolio originally initiated a Hewlett-Packard position after the well-publicized departure of Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) Mark Hurd caused shares to drop to valuations near the bottom end of historical ranges based on earnings and cash flow. The company’s dominant franchise in printing, number-one market share in personal computers and servers, large base of recurring revenues, and history of strong cash flow generation are all positive characteristics for Hewlett-Packard. However, a number of operational and strategic missteps, including a large, dilutive acquisition of a United Kingdom (“U.K.”) software firm, weighed on the shares and caused us to revise downward our estimates of intrinsic value and downside protection. Therefore, we decided to sell the Portfolio’s position.

ThyssenKrupp is an industrial conglomerate that has two lines of business—materials and technology. The materials segment includes one of the world’s largest non-integrated steel producers, while the technology division is diverse and includes segments that manufacture elevators, produce components for the automotive industry and build large scale industrial plants, military ships and submarines. ThyssenKrupp is a restructuring story with new management working to deliver on past investments and improve productivity. Its stock price moved lower in the second half of 2011 due to concerns the global economic recovery was stalling and as leaders struggled to contain the European sovereign debt crisis. The stock fell further after management placed stock to bolster its balance sheet, and on company delays in ramping up a significant steel project in the Americas. Despite the recent pullback, at year-end we continued to believe ThyssenKrupp was in the early stages of transformation and that the company’s ongoing restructuring efforts could be a positive catalyst in streamlining its businesses.

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio

Managed by Franklin Mutual Advisers, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

Among the Portfolio’s top contributors for 2011 were managed care company UnitedHealth Group, Marathon Oil, and cigarette manufacturer British American Tobacco (“BAT”) (U.K.).

UnitedHealth’s shares rose during the year as its earnings beat management’s initial guidance in part due to lower-than-expected utilization of medical services by its members in addition to strong membership growth. The company increased its dividend in 2011, while its board of directors re-authorized the company’s share repurchase plan. At a UnitedHealth investor day convening in late November, management reaffirmed its 13% to 15% long-term earnings growth rate goal, which they seek to achieve via high, single-digit topline growth and productivity enhancements.

Marathon Oil became a pure-play oil and gas exploration and production company following the mid-2011 spinoff to shareholders of its downstream refining and marketing operations, a separate company now called Marathon Petroleum Corp. The shares rose sharply in early 2011 following the company’s announcement of the planned separation as the market began to recognize the value of the underlying businesses and as refining margins improved. Shares of the new Marathon Oil performed well during the latter half of the year as the company released positive third quarter results and announced an opportunistic share buyback. As the company sought to complete its current transformation phase into 2012, we continued to favor Marathon Oil shares and believed its stock price traded at an attractive valuation.

BAT shares were another key contributor to Portfolio performance as it announced operating results that repeatedly exceeded market expectations through the third quarter of 2011. Management also announced it had completed a five-year goal to realize £800 million in cost savings two years ahead of schedule, and it laid out a new goal to continue growing operating margins for the next six to seven years by increasing prices and cutting costs. In 2011, BAT and other tobacco stocks also benefited from the defensive nature of their business models, which can include pricing power, reasonably predictable operating profits and high dividend payout ratios. BAT has been a long-term Portfolio holding, and at year-end we continued to believe the shares were an attractive investment in a market fraught with uncertainty.

During the year, the Portfolio held currency forwards to hedge some of the currency risk in the Portfolio’s non-U.S. Dollar investments. The hedges had a minor negative impact on the Portfolio’s performance during the period.

Equities remained the core of our Portfolio, with little changes to sector weightings. In the distressed debt arena, we found some interesting opportunities but fewer than we would have expected at the start of the year. Quantitative easing and risk aversion pushed investors into corporate credit markets in their search for yield, and companies with high leverage were able to obtain credit. The year 2011 ended with less merger and acquisition activity than anticipated. We approach 2012 cognizant of challenges to the economies and markets from potential rising U.S. interest rates, the ongoing and unsolved European sovereign debt crisis, and slowing growth in China. In the midst of these cross-currents we continue to look for the company-specific opportunities that can provide attractive returns in a variety of economic scenarios.

Peter A. Langerman, Co-Portfolio Manager

F. David Segal, CFA, Co-Portfolio Manager

Debbie A. Turner, CFA, Assistant Portfolio Manager

Franklin Mutual Advisers, LLC

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio

Managed by Franklin Mutual Advisers, LLC

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
CVS Caremark Corp.		2.9
British American Tobacco plc		2.7
Merck & Co., Inc.		2.7
Pfizer, Inc.		2.4
Imperial Tobacco Group plc		2.3
Kraft Foods, Inc. - Class A		2.3
Microsoft Corp.		2.2
Marathon Oil Corp.		1.9
Vodafone Group plc		1.8
Royal Dutch Shell plc - A Shares		1.7

Top Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Non-Cyclical		31.7
Financials		13.6
Communications		12.0
Energy		9.7
Cash & Cash Equivalents		7.8
Industrials		7.0
Cyclical		6.9
Utilities		5.1
Technology		3.7
Basic Materials		2.5

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio

Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio managed by

Franklin Mutual Advisers, LLC vs. S&P 500 Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		Since Inception3
Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio—Class A		-0.26%		-2.03%
Class B		-0.55%		-2.27%
S&P 500 Index1		2.11%		-0.62%

The performance of Class B shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other class of shares because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹The Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Index is an unmanaged index representing the performance of 500 major companies, most of which are listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

²“Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gains distributions.

³Inception of Class A and Class B shares is 4/28/2008. Index returns are based on an inception date of 4/28/2008.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A(a)
Actual		0.88%	$	1,000.00	$	941.20	$	4.31
Hypothetical*		0.88%		1,000.00		1,020.76		4.48
Class B(a)
Actual		1.13%	$	1,000.00	$	939.70	$	5.52
Hypothetical*		1.13%		1,000.00		1,019.50		5.75

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

(a) The annualized expense ratio reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 3 to the Financial Statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—86.2% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—2.4%
GenCorp, Inc.* (a)		84,611	$	450,130
Goodrich Corp.		26,030		3,219,911
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc.* (a)		117,042		3,661,074
Raytheon Co.		180,449		8,730,123
				16,061,238
Air Freight & Logistics—0.2%
PostNL N.V.		151,660		481,648
TNT Express N.V.		143,235		1,069,803
				1,551,451
Automobiles—0.7%
Daimler AG		14,419		634,357
General Motors Co.*		206,372		4,183,160
				4,817,517
Beverages—3.9%
Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc.		149,252		3,847,717
Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc.		161,926		6,392,838
PepsiCo, Inc.		78,350		5,198,522
Pernod Ricard S.A.		109,034		10,114,363
				25,553,440
Biotechnology—1.6%
Amgen, Inc.		166,564		10,695,074
Building Products—0.8%
Owens Corning, Inc.*		183,317		5,264,864
Capital Markets—1.3%
Morgan Stanley		357,462		5,408,400
UBS AG*		290,104		3,452,189
				8,860,589
Chemicals—0.9%
Linde AG		40,043		5,970,336
Commercial Banks—2.8%
CIT Group, Inc.*		56,290		1,962,832
KB Financial Group, Inc.*		53,522		1,690,064
PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.		189,337		10,919,065
Wells Fargo & Co.		149,642		4,124,134
				18,696,095
Communications Equipment—1.8%
Cisco Systems, Inc.		453,579		8,200,708
Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc.*		85,050		3,299,940
				11,500,648
Diversified Financial Services—1.7%
Bond Street Holdings LLC - Class A (144A)*		80,828	$	1,737,802
Citigroup, Inc.		123,056		3,237,603
Deutsche Boerse AG*		56,490		2,968,221
NYSE Euronext		111,350		2,906,235
				10,849,861
Diversified Telecommunication Services—0.2%
Cable & Wireless Communications plc		1,964,904		1,163,270
Electric Utilities—2.4%
E.On AG		260,905		5,621,033
Entergy Corp.		43,780		3,198,129
Exelon Corp.		158,888		6,890,972
				15,710,134
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—0.8%
TE Connectivity, Ltd.		180,727		5,568,199
Energy Equipment & Services—1.3%
Ensco plc (ADR)		56,503		2,651,121
Exterran Holdings, Inc.* (a)		10,927		99,436
Transocean, Ltd.		142,890		5,485,547
				8,236,104
Food & Staples Retailing—4.9%
CVS Caremark Corp.		465,067		18,965,432
Kroger Co. (The)		355,759		8,616,483
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.		80,535		4,812,772
				32,394,687
Food Products—3.3%
General Mills, Inc.		168,781		6,820,440
Kraft Foods, Inc. - Class A		400,014		14,944,523
				21,764,963
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—2.1%
Boston Scientific Corp.*		738,562		3,943,921
Medtronic, Inc.		256,224		9,800,568
				13,744,489
Health Care Providers & Services—2.4%
Coventry Health Care, Inc.*		91,078		2,766,039
Tenet Healthcare Corp.* (a)		915,943		4,698,787
UnitedHealth Group, Inc.		159,951		8,106,317
				15,571,143
Household Durables—0.3%
D.R. Horton, Inc. (a)		173,510		2,187,961

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders—0.7%
NRG Energy, Inc.* (a)		251,317	$	4,553,864
Industrial Conglomerates—0.1%
Orkla A.S.A.		64,979		484,326
Insurance—4.6%
ACE, Ltd.		126,566		8,874,808
Alleghany Corp.* (a)		8,909		2,541,649
American International Group, Inc.*		249,960		5,799,072
CNO Financial Group, Inc.* (a)		121,940		769,441
Old Republic International Corp.		113,213		1,049,485
White Mountains Insurance Group, Ltd.		16,348		7,413,164
Zurich Financial Services AG*		16,950		3,834,510
				30,282,129
Internet Software & Services—0.9%
Google, Inc. - Class A*		9,300		6,006,870
Leisure Equipment & Products—0.6%
Mattel, Inc.		131,907		3,661,738
Machinery—1.1%
Oshkosh Corp.*		134,330		2,871,975
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.		63,200		4,272,320
				7,144,295
Marine—1.0%
A.P. Moller - Maersk A.S. - Class B		1,002		6,608,056
Media—5.4%
British Sky Broadcasting Group plc		495,920		5,637,313
News Corp. - Class A		526,678		9,395,936
News Corp. - Class B		83,935		1,525,938
Time Warner Cable, Inc.		144,109		9,161,009
Viacom, Inc. - Class B		208,805		9,481,835
				35,202,031
Metals & Mining—0.7%
ThyssenKrupp AG		194,720		4,467,341
Multi-Utilities—0.6%
GDF Suez		135,351		3,689,413
Multiline Retail—0.5%
Kohl’s Corp.		64,940		3,204,789
Office Electronics—1.4%
Xerox Corp.		1,162,114		9,250,427
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—8.3%
Apache Corp.		82,480	$	7,471,038
BP plc		534,519		3,813,141
El Paso Corp.		168,677		4,481,748
Marathon Oil Corp.		419,511		12,279,087
Marathon Petroleum Corp.		121,683		4,050,827
Murphy Oil Corp.		85,398		4,760,084
Prime AET&D Holdings No. 1 (b)		762,551		0
Royal Dutch Shell plc - A Shares		313,392		11,428,193
Williams Cos., Inc. (The)		183,341		6,053,920
				54,338,038
Paper & Forest Products—1.8%
Domtar Corp.		33,084		2,645,397
International Paper Co.		312,195		9,240,972
				11,886,369
Pharmaceuticals—7.4%
Eli Lilly & Co.		196,658		8,173,106
Hospira, Inc.*		105,507		3,204,248
Merck & Co., Inc.		470,464		17,736,493
Pfizer, Inc.		732,724		15,856,147
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. (ADR)		95,691		3,862,089
				48,832,083
Real Estate Investment Trusts—0.6%
Alexander’s, Inc. (a)		11,059		4,092,162
Real Estate Management & Development—0.5%
Canary Wharf Group plc* (b)		767,618		2,818,600
Forestar Real Estate Group, Inc.* (a)		51,756		783,068
				3,601,668
Software—3.2%
Microsoft Corp.		563,241		14,621,736
Nintendo Co., Ltd.		13,417		1,849,145
Symantec Corp.*		295,893		4,630,726
				21,101,607
Tobacco—9.2%
Altria Group, Inc.		366,897		10,878,496
British American Tobacco plc		381,095		18,076,236
Imperial Tobacco Group plc		402,570		15,222,478
Lorillard, Inc.		53,968		6,152,352
Philip Morris International, Inc.		78,888		6,191,130
Reynolds American, Inc.		89,483		3,706,386
				60,227,078

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares/Par Amount($)†		Value
Wireless Telecommunication Services—1.8%
Vodafone Group plc		4,339,276	$	12,051,661
Total Common Stocks (Cost $532,873,097)				566,848,008
Loan Participation—3.1%
Electric Utilities—0.7%
Texas Competitive Electric Holdings Co. LLC/TCEH Finance, Inc. 4.776%, 10/10/17 (c)		7,576,241		4,816,330
Media—0.9%
Clear Channel Communications, Inc. 3.946%, 01/28/16 (c)		4,097,000		3,043,313
3.946%, 01/28/16 (c)		1,020,976		737,655
3.946%, 01/29/16 (c)		1,039,000		750,304
Tribune Co. 0.000%, 06/04/14 (c)		336,000		192,024
5.250%, 06/04/14 (c)		2,150,000		1,263,125
				5,986,421
Real Estate Investment Trusts—0.1%
iStar Financial, Inc. 5.000%, 06/28/13 (c)		315,139		313,957
7.000%, 06/30/14 (c)		234,000		226,981
				540,938
Real Estate Management & Development—1.4%
Realogy Corp. 4.437%, 10/10/16 (c)		659,926		591,307
4.691%, 10/10/16 (c)		9,016,300		8,078,785
13.500%, 10/15/17 (c)		719,000		723,494
				9,393,586
Total Loan Participation (Cost $23,527,302)				20,737,275
Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—1.3%
Diversified Financial Services—0.1%
Capmark Financial Group, Inc. 9.000%, 09/30/15 (c)		704,000		716,320
Electric Utilities—0.5%
Texas Competitive Electric Holdings Co. LLC/TCEH Finance, Inc. 11.500%, 10/01/20 (144A)		3,580,000		3,056,425
Food & Staples Retailing—0.2%
Rite Aid Corp. 8.625%, 03/01/15		756,000	$	733,320
9.375%, 12/15/15		969,000		939,930
				1,673,250
Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders—0.2%
NRG Energy, Inc. 7.375%, 01/15/17		1,090,000		1,133,600
Media—0.2%
Clear Channel Communications, Inc. 11.000%, 08/01/16 (d)		1,460,000		927,100
9.000%, 03/01/21		349,000		295,777
				1,222,877
Real Estate Management & Development—0.1%
Realogy Corp.
11.500%, 04/15/17		445,000		349,325
7.875%, 02/15/19 (144A)		824,000		721,000
				1,070,325
Total Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities (Cost $9,167,662)				8,872,797
Convertible Bonds—0.1%
Real Estate Investment Trusts—0.1%
iStar Financial, Inc.
0.872%, 10/01/12 (c) (Cost $814,282)		875,000		787,500
Short-Term Investments—9.4%
Mutual Funds—1.7%
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (e)		10,900,569		10,900,569
Repurchase Agreement—3.0%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $19,632,022 on 01/03/11, collateralized by $20,050,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. at 0.625% due 12/23/13 with a value of $20,024,938.	$	19,632,000		19,632,000

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Short-Term Investments—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
U.S. Treasury—4.7%
U.S. Treasury Bills
0.061%, 01/05/12 (f)		5,000,000	$	4,999,995
0.030%, 02/23/12 (f)		10,000,000		9,999,820
0.018%, 03/22/12 (f)		10,000,000		9,999,670
0.010%, 05/10/12 (f)		3,000,000		2,999,706
0.055%, 06/28/12 (f)		3,000,000		2,999,151
				30,998,342
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $61,530,771)				61,530,911
Total Investments—100.1% (Cost $627,913,114#)				658,776,491
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(0.1)%				(940,001	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	657,836,490

† Par amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $630,828,290. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $73,728,022 and $(45,779,821), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $27,948,201 for federal income tax purposes.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities loaned was $15,285,790 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $10,900,569 and non-cash collateral with a value of $4,905,217. The cash collateral is invested in a money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The non-cash collateral received consists primarily of government securities and bank letters of credit, and are held for the benefit of the Portfolio at the Portfolio’s custodian. The Portfolio cannot repledge or resell this collateral. As such, this collateral is excluded from the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

(b) Security was valued in good faith under procedures approved by the Board of Trustees.

(c) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2011. Maturity date shown for callable securities reflects the earliest possible call date.

(d) Payment-in-kind security for which part of the income earned may be paid as additional principal.

(e) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities lending transactions.

(f) Zero coupon bond - Interest rate represents current yield to maturity.

(144A)— Securities exempt from registration under Rule 144A of the Securities Act of 1933. These securities may be resold in transactions exempt from registration, normally to qualified institutional buyers. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of 144A securities was $5,515,227, which is 0.8% of net assets.

(ADR)— An American Depositary Receipt is a certificate issued by a custodian bank representing the right to receive securities of the foreign issuer described. Trading on exchanges not located in the United States or Canada significantly influences the value of ADRs.

Countries Diversification as of December 31, 2011 (Unaudited)
	% of Net Assets
United States		75.7
United Kingdom		11.1
Switzerland		4.1
Germany		3.0
France		2.1
Denmark		1.0
Israel		0.6
Japan		0.3
South Korea		0.3
Netherlands		0.2

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Common Stocks
Aerospace & Defense	$	16,061,238	$	—	$	—	$	16,061,238
Air Freight & Logistics		—		1,551,451		—		1,551,451
Automobiles		4,183,160		634,357		—		4,817,517
Beverages		15,439,077		10,114,363		—		25,553,440
Biotechnology		10,695,074		—		—		10,695,074
Building Products		5,264,864		—		—		5,264,864
Capital Markets		5,408,400		3,452,189		—		8,860,589
Chemicals		—		5,970,336		—		5,970,336
Commercial Banks		17,006,031		1,690,064		—		18,696,095
Communications Equipment		11,500,648		—		—		11,500,648
Diversified Financial Services		6,143,838		4,706,023		—		10,849,861
Diversified Telecommunication Services		—		1,163,270		—		1,163,270
Electric Utilities		10,089,101		5,621,033		—		15,710,134
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components		5,568,199		—		—		5,568,199
Energy Equipment & Services		8,236,104		—		—		8,236,104
Food & Staples Retailing		32,394,687		—		—		32,394,687
Food Products		21,764,963		—		—		21,764,963
Health Care Equipment & Supplies		13,744,489		—		—		13,744,489
Health Care Providers & Services		15,571,143		—		—		15,571,143
Household Durables		2,187,961		—		—		2,187,961
Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders		4,553,864		—		—		4,553,864
Industrial Conglomerates		—		484,326		—		484,326
Insurance		26,447,619		3,834,510		—		30,282,129
Internet Software & Services		6,006,870		—		—		6,006,870
Leisure Equipment & Products		3,661,738		—		—		3,661,738
Machinery		7,144,295		—		—		7,144,295
Marine		—		6,608,056		—		6,608,056
Media		29,564,718		5,637,313		—		35,202,031
Metals & Mining		—		4,467,341		—		4,467,341
Multi-Utilities		—		3,689,413		—		3,689,413
Multiline Retail		3,204,789		—		—		3,204,789
Office Electronics		9,250,427		—		—		9,250,427

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY—(Continued)

Description	Level 1			Level 2			Level 3		Total
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels	$	39,096,704		$	15,241,334		$	—	$	54,338,038
Paper & Forest Products		11,886,369			—			—		11,886,369
Pharmaceuticals		48,832,083			—			—		48,832,083
Real Estate Investment Trusts		4,092,162			—			—		4,092,162
Real Estate Management & Development		783,068			—			2,818,600		3,601,668
Software		19,252,462			1,849,145			—		21,101,607
Tobacco		26,928,364			33,298,714			—		60,227,078
Wireless Telecommunication Services		—			12,051,661			—		12,051,661
Total Common Stocks		441,964,509			122,064,899			2,818,600		566,848,008
Total Loan Participation		—			20,737,275			—		20,737,275
Total Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities*		—			8,872,797			—		8,872,797
Convertible Bonds*		—			787,500			—		787,500
Short-Term Investments
Mutual Funds		10,900,569			—			—		10,900,569
Repurchase Agreement		—			19,632,000			—		19,632,000
U.S. Treasury		—			30,998,342			—		30,998,342
Total Short-Term Investments		10,900,569			50,630,342			—		61,530,911
Total Investments	$	452,865,078		$	203,092,813		$	2,818,600	$	658,776,491
Forward Contracts**
Forward Foreign Currency Contracts (Unrealized Appreciation)	$	—		$	5,445,961		$	—	$	5,445,961
Forward Foreign Currency Contracts (Unrealized Depreciation)		—			(1,078,606	)		—		(1,078,606	)
Total Forward Contracts	$	—		$	4,367,355		$	—	$	4,367,355
Written Options**	$	(42,300	)	$	—		$	—	$	(42,300	)
Total Written Options	$	(42,300	)	$	—		$	—	$	(42,300	)

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

** Derivative instruments such as forwards are valued on the unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the instrument. Written options are presented at value.

Following is a reconciliation of Level 3 assets for which significant unobservable inputs were used to determine fair value:

Investments in Securities	Balance as of December 31, 2010		Change in Unrealized Depreciation			Purchases		Balance as of December 31, 2011		Change in Unrealized Depreciation for Investments Held at December 31, 2011
Common Stocks
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels	$	1	$	(1	)	$	—	$	—	$	—
Real Estate Management & Development		3,327,204		(508,604	)		—		2,818,600		(508,604	)
Total	$	3,327,205	$	(508,605	)	$	—	$	2,818,600	$	(508,604	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)(b)	$	639,144,491
Repurchase Agreement		19,632,000
Cash		1,549
Cash denominated in foreign currencies (c)		5,245,364
Receivable for investments sold		365,480
Receivable for shares sold		121,412
Dividends receivable		1,548,236
Interest receivable		417,580
Unrealized appreciation on forward currency exchange contracts		5,445,961
Total assets		671,922,073
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		1,336,899
Shares redeemed		85,440
Unrealized depreciation on forward currency exchange contracts		1,078,606
Outstanding written options (d)		42,300
Collateral for securities loaned		10,900,569
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		441,108
Distribution and service fees - Class B		70,066
Administration fees		2,903
Custodian and accounting fees		21,056
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		81,569
Total liabilities		14,085,583
Net Assets	$	657,836,490
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	507,412,628
Accumulated net realized gain		114,861,945
Unrealized appreciation on investments, written options contracts and foreign currency transactions		35,141,813
Undistributed net investment income		420,104
Net Assets	$	657,836,490
Net Assets
Class A	$	323,166,424
Class B		334,670,066
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		39,603,826
Class B		41,330,232
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	8.16
Class B		8.10

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreement, was $608,281,114.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $15,285,790.

(c) Identified cost of cash denominated in foreign currencies was $5,308,966.

(d) Premiums received on written options were $30,375.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	18,304,072
Interest (b)		3,662,224
Total investment income		21,966,296
Expenses
Management fees		6,092,362
Administration fees		40,235
Custodian and accounting fees		249,452
Distribution and service fees - Class B		789,313
Audit and tax services		50,684
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Shareholder reporting		93,482
Insurance		10,518
Miscellaneous		15,555
Total expenses		7,410,311
Less management fee waiver		(2,260	)
Net expenses		7,408,051
Net investment income		14,558,245
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments, Futures Contracts, Written Options Contracts and Foreign Currency Transactions
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments		116,040,006
Futures contracts		3,002,180
Written options contracts		24,253
Foreign currency transactions		(15,678,733	)
Net realized gain on investments, futures contracts, written options contracts and foreign currency transactions		103,387,706
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on:
Investments		(98,062,528	)
Written options contracts		(11,925	)
Foreign currency transactions		7,153,194
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments, written options contracts and foreign currency transactions		(90,921,259	)
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments, written options contracts and foreign currency transactions		12,466,447
Net Increase in Net Assets from Operations	$	27,024,692

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $598,836.

(b) Includes net income on securities loaned of $250,121.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	14,558,245		$	24,797,864
Net realized gain on investments, futures contracts, written options contracts and foreign currency transactions		103,387,706			69,451,007
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments, written options contracts and foreign currency transactions		(90,921,259	)		5,127,512
Net increase in net assets resulting from operations		27,024,692			99,376,383
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(21,606,233	)		—
Class B		(8,703,947	)		—
From net realized capital gains
Class A		(40,500,424	)		(9,081,969	)
Class B		(17,263,421	)		(2,364,247	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(88,074,025	)		(11,446,216	)
Net increase (decrease) in net assets from capital share transactions		(246,243,778	)		68,118,608
Net Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets		(307,293,111	)		156,048,775
Net assets at beginning of period		965,129,601			809,080,826
Net assets at end of period	$	657,836,490		$	965,129,601
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	420,104		$	31,944,360

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		9,333,051		$	80,802,809			12,853,216		$	107,215,609
Reinvestments		7,163,398			62,106,657			1,047,517			9,081,969
Redemptions		(54,470,722	)		(479,276,496	)		(17,388,182	)		(148,343,041	)
Net decrease		(37,974,273	)	$	(336,367,030	)		(3,487,449	)	$	(32,045,463	)
Class B
Sales		11,752,823		$	100,053,599			14,155,845		$	116,595,743
Reinvestments		3,012,456			25,967,368			273,957			2,364,247
Redemptions		(4,319,576	)		(35,897,715	)		(2,295,834	)		(18,795,919	)
Net increase		10,445,703		$	90,123,252			12,133,968		$	100,164,071
Increase (decrease) derived from capital shares transactions				$	(246,243,778	)				$	68,118,608

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009		2008(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	8.91		$	8.11		$	6.48	$	10.00
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.17			0.25			0.11		0.07
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.15	)		0.66			1.52		(3.40	)
Total from investment operations		0.02			0.91			1.63		(3.33	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.27	)		0.00			0.00		(0.19	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.50	)		(0.11	)		0.00		0.00
Distributions from return of capital		0.00			0.00			0.00		(0.00	)+
Total distributions		(0.77	)		(0.11	)		0.00		(0.19	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	8.16		$	8.91		$	8.11	$	6.48
Total Return (%)		(0.26	)		11.23			25.15		(33.20	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.87			0.88			0.90		1.32	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)		0.87			0.88			0.90		0.90	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.97			3.00			1.47		1.29	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		67.3			42.3			60.8		23.6
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	323.2		$	691.6		$	657.6	$	90.9

	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009		2008(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	8.86		$	8.08		$	6.47	$	10.00
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.15			0.23			0.09		0.05
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.16	)		0.66			1.52		(3.39	)
Total from investment operations		(0.01	)		0.89			1.61		(3.34	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.25	)		0.00			0.00		(0.19	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.50	)		(0.11	)		0.00		0.00
Distributions from return of capital		0.00			0.00			0.00		(0.00	)+
Total distributions		(0.75	)		(0.11	)		0.00		(0.19	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	8.10		$	8.86		$	8.08	$	6.47
Total Return (%)		(0.55	)		11.02			24.88		(33.36	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.12			1.13			1.15		1.60	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)		1.12			1.13			1.15		1.15	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.83			2.84			1.27		1.05	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		67.3			42.3			60.8		23.6
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	334.7		$	273.6		$	151.5	$	31.9

* Annualized.

+ Distributions from return of capital were less than $0.01.

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Commencement of operations was 4/28/2008.

(c) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Companies (“Metlife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A and B Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to foreign currency transactions, Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), forwards transactions, Ingersoll Rand security sold adjustment, passive foreign investment companies (PFICs), deferred trustees’ compensation, and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Securities Lending - The Portfolio may lend its portfolio securities to certain qualified brokers who borrow securities in order to complete certain securities transactions. By lending its portfolio securities, the Portfolio attempts to increase its net investment income through the receipt of income on the loaned securities. Any gain or loss in the market price of the loaned securities that might occur and any interest earned or dividends declared during the term of the loan would accrue to the account of the Portfolio.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

The Trust has entered into a securities lending arrangement with the custodian, State Street Bank and Trust Company (the “custodian”). Under this arrangement, the custodian is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral at least equal to 102% of the market value of the loaned securities (105% for foreign equity securities), at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities must be maintained for the duration of the loan. Cash collateral is generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The Navigator Portfolio is a registered money market fund which invests in a variety of high quality U.S. dollar-denominated instruments. If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower shall be required to deliver, by the close of business on the following business day, an additional amount of collateral so that the total amount of posted collateral equals at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of net income (income after the deduction of expenses and fees of the Navigator Portfolio) on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the custodian and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by U.S. Treasuries, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the custodian. The risks associated with lending portfolio securities include, but are not limited to, possible delays in receiving additional collateral or in the recovery of the loaned securities, possible loss of rights in the collateral should the borrower fail financially, as well as risk of loss in the value of the collateral or the value of the investments made with the collateral. Net interest income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2011 is disclosed in the footnotes to the Statement of Operations. Any outstanding loans by the Portfolio at December 31, 2011 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

Foreign Currency Translation - The books and records of the Portfolio are maintained in U.S. dollars. The values of securities, currencies and other assets and liabilities denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars are translated into U.S. dollars based upon foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period. Purchases and sales of investment securities, income and expenses are translated on the respective dates of such transactions. Since the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, it is not practical to isolate that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates from that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities. Such fluctuations are included in the net realized and unrealized gain or loss on investments.

Net realized foreign exchange gains or losses arise from activity in forward foreign currency exchange contracts, sales of foreign currency, currency gains or losses realized between the trade and settlement dates on securities transactions, and the difference between the amounts of dividends, interest, and foreign withholding taxes recorded by the Portfolio and the U.S. dollar equivalent of the amounts actually received or paid by the Portfolio. Gains and losses attributable to foreign currency exchange rates on sales of securities are recorded as Net realized gains and losses on investments. Net unrealized foreign exchange gains and losses arise from changes in the value of assets and liabilities, other than investment securities, resulting from changes in foreign exchange rates.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with Franklin Mutual Advisers, LLC (the “Subadviser”) for investment advisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year  ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$6,092,362		0.800	%	ALL

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Management Fee Waiver - Effective May 1, 2011, the Adviser contractually agreed to waive a portion of the management fee through April 30, 2012. This waiver reduced the management fee to the annual rate of 0.780% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets in excess of $1 billion. This arrangement was voluntary for the period January 1, 2011 through April 30, 2011. Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as a management fee waiver in the Statement of Operations.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Expense Limitation Agreement - The Adviser had entered into an expense limitation agreement with the Trust (“Expense Limitation Agreement”) in the interest of limiting expenses of the Portfolio. The Expense Limitation Agreement continued in effect with respect to the Portfolio until April 30, 2011. Pursuant to that Expense Limitation Agreement, the Adviser had agreed to waive or limit its fees and to assume other expenses so that the total annual operating expenses of the Portfolio other than interest, taxes, brokerage commissions, other expenditures which were capitalized or expensed in accordance with GAAP, other extraordinary expenses not incurred in the ordinary course of the Portfolio’s business and acquired fund fees and expenses but including amounts payable pursuant to a plan adopted in accordance with Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act, were limited to the following expense ratios as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets:

Maximum Expense Ratio under current Expense Limitation  Agreement
Class A	Class B
0.90%		1.15	%

If in any year in which the Management Agreement is still in effect, the estimated aggregate operating expenses of the Portfolio for the fiscal year are less than the Maximum Expense Ratios for that year, subject to approval by the Trust’s Board, the Adviser shall be entitled to reimbursement by the Portfolio to the extent that the charge does not cause the expenses in such subsequent year to exceed the Maximum Expense Ratios as stated above. The Portfolio is not obligated to repay any expense paid by the Adviser more than five years after the end of the fiscal year in which such expense was incurred.

Effective May 1, 2011, there was no longer an expense cap for the Portfolio.

Distribution Agreement and Plan - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A and Class B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B distribution plan provides that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B Shares. However, under the Class B distribution agreement, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B distribution plan are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B distribution plan and distribution agreement, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$—	$	490,403,601	$	—	$	817,163,740

During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio engaged in security sale transactions with other affiliated portfolios. These sale transactions amounted to $160,703,411 and resulted in a realized gain of $31,836,387. The Portfolio also engaged in security transactions with other accounts managed by Franklin Mutual Advisers, LLC that amounted to $1,788,210 in purchases of investments which is included above.

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - The Portfolio may enter into forward foreign currency exchange contracts to hedge its portfolio holdings against the risk of future movements in certain foreign currency exchange rates. When entering into these contracts, the Portfolio agrees to receive or deliver a fixed quantity of foreign currency for an agreed-upon price on an agreed upon future date. These contracts are valued daily and the Portfolio’s net equity therein, representing unrealized gain or loss on the contracts as measured by the difference between the forward foreign exchange rates at the dates of entry into the contracts and the forward foreign exchange rates at the value date, is included in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. When a contract is closed, the Portfolio recognizes a realized gain or loss equal to the difference between the value of the contract at the time it was opened and the value at the time it was closed.

Realized and unrealized gains and losses on forward foreign currency exchange contracts are included in the Statement of Operations. These contracts involve market and/or credit risk in excess of the amount recognized in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

The use of forward foreign currency exchange contracts does not eliminate fluctuations in the underlying prices of the securities of the Portfolio, but it does establish a rate of exchange that can be achieved in the future. Although forward foreign currency exchange contracts may limit the risk of loss due to a decline in the value of the currency holdings, they also limit any potential gain that might result should the value of the currency increase. In addition, the Portfolio could be exposed to risks if the counterparties to the contracts are unable to meet the terms of the contracts. The Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit risk, as opposed to investment and other types of risk, in respect of foreign currency forward contracts is typically the value of the currency the Portfolio is due from its counterparty at settlement plus the value of the currency paid, if any, to the Portfolio’s counterparty.

Futures Contracts - The Portfolio may buy and sell futures contracts (on recognized exchanges) as a hedge, to maintain investment exposure to a target asset class or to enhance return. The Portfolio may be subject to fluctuations in equity prices, interest rates, commodity prices and foreign currency exchange rates in the normal course of pursuing its investment objective. Futures contracts are standardized agreements to buy or sell a security, or deliver a final cash settlement price in connection with an index, interest rate, currency, or other asset. The Portfolio must deposit an amount (“initial margin”) equal to a certain percentage of the face value of the futures contract. The initial margin may be in the form of cash or securities which is returned when the Portfolio’s obligations under the contract have been satisfied. If cash is deposited as the initial margin, it is shown as “restricted cash” on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Futures contracts are marked-to-market daily and subsequent payments (“variation margin”) are made or received by the Portfolio depending on the daily fluctuations in the value of the futures contracts. These amounts are reflected as receivables or payables on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Risks of entering into futures contracts (and related options) include the possibility that the market for these instruments may be illiquid and that a change in the value of the contract or option may not correlate perfectly with changes in the value of the underlying instrument. Futures contracts are exchange traded and the exchange’s clearinghouse, as counterparty to all exchange traded futures, guarantees the futures contracts against default.

During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio entered into equity index futures contracts which were subject to equity price risk. During the period April 26—April 28, 2011, the Portfolio had bought and sold $237,880,696 in equity index futures contracts. At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not have any open futures contacts. For the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had realized gain in the amount of $3,002,181 which are shown under Net realized gain on Futures contracts in the Statement of Operations.

Options Contracts - An option contract purchased by the Portfolio gives the Portfolio the right, but not the obligation, to buy (call) or sell (put) an underlying instrument at a fixed exercise price during a specified period. Call options written by the Portfolio gives the holder the right to buy the underlying instrument from the Portfolio at a fixed exercise price; put options written by the Portfolio give the holder the right to sell the underlying instrument to the Portfolio at a fixed exercise price.

The Portfolio may use options to hedge against changes in values of securities the Portfolio owns or expects to purchase, to maintain exposure to the broad equity markets or to enhance return. Writing puts or buying calls tend to increase the Portfolio’s exposure to the underlying instrument and writing calls or buying puts tend to decrease the Portfolio’s exposure to the underlying instrument, and can be used to hedge other Portfolio investments. For options purchased to hedge the Portfolio’s investments, the potential risk to the Portfolio is that the change in value of options

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments - continued

contracts may not correspond perfectly to the change in value of the hedged instruments. In addition, losses may arise from changes in the value of the underlying instrument, if there is an illiquid secondary market for the option contract, or if the counterparty to the option contract is unable to perform. The Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit risk, as opposed to investment and other types of risk, in respect of purchased options is typically the premium initially paid for the option plus the market value of the option.

The main risk associated with purchasing an option is that the option expires without being exercised. In this case, the option expires worthless and the premium paid for the option is considered a loss. The risk associated with writing a call option is that the Portfolio may forgo the opportunity for a profit if the market value of the underlying instrument increases and the option is exercised, requiring the Portfolio to sell the underlying instrument at a price below its market value. When the Portfolio writes a call option on a security it does not own, its exposure on such an option is theoretically unlimited. The risk in writing a put option is that the Portfolio may incur a loss if the market value of the underlying instrument decreases and the option is exercised, requiring the Portfolio to purchase the underlying instrument at a price above its market value. In addition, the Portfolio risks not being able to enter into a closing transaction for the written option as the result of an illiquid market for the option.

Purchases of put and call options are recorded as investments, the value of which are marked-to-market daily. When a purchased option expires without being exercised, the Portfolio will realize a loss equal to the premium paid. When the Portfolio enters into a closing sale transaction, the Portfolio will realize a gain or loss depending on whether the sales proceeds from the closing sale transaction are greater or less than the premium initially paid for the option. When the Portfolio exercises a put option, it will realize a gain or loss from the sale of the underlying instrument and the proceeds from such sale will be decreased by the premium originally paid for the put option. When the Portfolio exercises a call option, the cost of the security which the Portfolio purchases upon exercise will be increased by the premium originally paid for the call option.

The premium received for a written option is recorded as an asset and an equivalent liability. The liability is marked-to-market daily based on the option’s quoted market price. When a written option expires without being exercised or the Portfolio enters into a closing purchase transaction, the Portfolio realizes a gain (or loss if the cost of the closing purchase transaction exceeds the premium received when the option was sold) without regard to any unrealized gain or loss on the underlying instrument and the liability related to such option is eliminated. When a written call option is exercised, the Portfolio realizes a gain or loss, as adjusted for the premium received, from the sale of the underlying instrument. When a written put option is exercised, the premium received is offset against the amount paid for the purchase of the underlying instrument.

At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had the following derivatives, categorized by risk exposure:

	Asset Derivatives			Liability Derivatives
Risk Exposure	Statement of Assets and Liabilities Location	Fair Value		Statement of Assets and Liabilities Location	Fair Value
Equity	Outstanding written options	$	—	Outstanding written options	$	42,300
Currency	Unrealized appreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts		5,445,961	Unrealized depreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts		1,078,606
Total		$	5,445,961		$	1,120,906

Transactions in derivative instruments during the year ended December 31, 2011, were as follows:

Statement of Operations Location - Net Realized Gain (Loss)	Equity		Currency			Total
Foreign currency transactions	$	—	$	(14,860,464	)	$	(14,860,464	)
Future contracts		3,002,180		—			3,002,180
Written options contracts		24,253		—			24,253
	$	3,026,433	$	(14,860,464	)	$	(11,834,031	)

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments - continued

Statement of Operations Location - Net Change in Unrealized Gain (Loss)	Equity			Currency		Total
Foreign currency transactions	$	—		$	7,279,243	$	7,279,243
Future contracts		—			—		—
Written options contracts		(11,925	)		—		(11,925	)
	$	(11,925	)	$	7,279,243	$	7,267,318

For the year ended December 31, 2011, the average amount or number per contract outstanding for each derivative type was as follows:

Derivative Description	Average Notional or Face Amount(a)
Foreign currency transactions	$	173,285,825
Written options contracts		(125	)

(a) Averages are based on activity levels during 2011.

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts to Buy:

Settlement Date	Counterparty	Contracts to Buy			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Net Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
2/23/2012	Barclays Bank plc		2,416,588	AUD	$	2,462,987	$	2,416,588	$	46,399
2/10/2012	Bank of America N.A.		232,992	CHF		248,664		258,063		(9,399	)
2/10/2012	Bank of America N.A.		374,021	CHF		399,180		412,850		(13,670	)
2/10/2012	Bank of America N.A.		32,000	CHF		34,153		34,956		(803	)
2/10/2012	Bank of America N.A.		273,500	CHF		291,897		298,372		(6,475	)
2/10/2012	Bank of America N.A.		72,008	CHF		76,852		77,009		(157	)
2/10/2012	Barclays Bank plc		466,480	CHF		497,859		516,160		(18,301	)
2/10/2012	Barclays Bank plc		302,579	CHF		322,932		338,902		(15,970	)
2/10/2012	Barclays Bank plc		296,255	CHF		316,183		331,913		(15,730	)
2/10/2012	Barclays Bank plc		153,900	CHF		164,252		168,636		(4,384	)
2/10/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		190,000	CHF		202,780		252,599		(49,819	)
2/10/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		1,309,896	CHF		1,398,008		1,778,034		(380,026	)
2/10/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		130,000	CHF		138,745		173,149		(34,404	)
2/10/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		2,070,000	CHF		2,209,242		2,356,692		(147,450	)
2/10/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		176,522	CHF		188,396		200,799		(12,403	)
2/10/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		129,230	CHF		137,923		145,269		(7,346	)
2/10/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		66,722	CHF		71,210		74,090		(2,880	)
2/10/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		146,415	CHF		156,264		161,679		(5,415	)
2/10/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		300,000	CHF		320,180		328,064		(7,884	)
2/10/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		330,000	CHF		352,198		359,184		(6,986	)
2/10/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		500,000	CHF		533,633		546,658		(13,025	)

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - continued

Settlement Date	Counterparty	Contracts to Buy			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Net Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
2/10/2012	State Street Bank & Trust		268,000	CHF	$	286,028	$	362,201	$	(76,173	)
2/10/2012	State Street Bank & Trust		68,810	CHF		73,438		76,754		(3,316	)
2/10/2012	State Street Bank & Trust		102,400	CHF		109,288		111,467		(2,179	)
2/10/2012	State Street Bank & Trust		147,070	CHF		156,963		160,564		(3,601	)
2/10/2012	State Street Bank & Trust		62,600	CHF		66,811		66,990		(179	)
3/15/2012	Bank of America N.A.		247,591	EUR		321,355		337,445		(16,090	)
3/15/2012	Bank of America N.A.		260,000	EUR		337,460		358,111		(20,651	)
3/15/2012	Barclays Bank plc		291,971	EUR		378,956		395,571		(16,615	)
3/15/2012	Barclays Bank plc		1,158,520	EUR		1,503,669		1,564,998		(61,329	)
3/15/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		383,939	EUR		498,323		523,397		(25,074	)
3/15/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		1,062,600	EUR		1,379,173		1,429,552		(50,379	)
3/15/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		291,672	EUR		378,568		386,217		(7,649	)
3/15/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		900,916	EUR		1,169,320		1,171,587		(2,267	)
3/15/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		236,700	EUR		307,218		307,805		(587	)
3/15/2012	HSBC Bank plc		291,981	EUR		378,969		395,524		(16,555	)
3/15/2012	State Street Bank & Trust		234,323	EUR		304,133		315,713		(11,580	)
3/15/2012	State Street Bank & Trust		515,427	EUR		668,985		666,669		2,316
1/20/2012	Bank of America N.A.		4,631,466	JPY		60,170		60,256		(86	)
1/20/2012	Bank of America N.A.		2,052,808	JPY		26,669		26,389		280
1/20/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		1,938,750	JPY		25,187		24,890		297
Net Unrealized Depreciation									$	(1,017,545	)

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts to Sell:

Settlement Date	Counterparty	Contracts to Deliver			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Net Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
2/23/2012	Bank of America N.A.		2,226,588	AUD	$	2,269,339	$	2,277,800	$	8,461
2/23/2012	Barclays Bank plc		135,480	AUD		138,081		130,749		(7,332	)
2/23/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		54,520	AUD		55,567		52,617		(2,950	)
2/10/2012	Bank of America N.A.		233,723	CHF		249,445		301,112		51,667
2/10/2012	Bank of America N.A.		149,000	CHF		159,023		173,954		14,931
2/10/2012	Bank of America N.A.		98,944	CHF		105,600		109,267		3,667
2/10/2012	Bank of America N.A.		44,035	CHF		46,997		47,620		623
2/10/2012	Bank of America N.A.		81,200	CHF		86,662		87,007		345
2/10/2012	Barclays Bank plc		4,569,814	CHF		4,877,211		6,027,983		1,150,772
2/10/2012	Barclays Bank plc		52,128	CHF		55,635		65,291		9,656
2/10/2012	Barclays Bank plc		207,129	CHF		221,061		261,163		40,102
2/10/2012	Barclays Bank plc		66,980	CHF		71,486		74,275		2,789

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - continued

Settlement Date	Counterparty	Contracts to Deliver			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Net Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
2/10/2012	Barclays Bank plc		125,000	CHF	$	133,408	$	140,340	$	6,932
2/10/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		4,719,186	CHF		5,036,630		6,212,643		1,176,013
2/10/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		243,105	CHF		259,458		298,475		39,017
2/10/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		104,615	CHF		111,653		130,582		18,929
2/10/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		40,548	CHF		43,275		44,394		1,119
2/10/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		30,420	CHF		32,466		33,791		1,325
2/10/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		44,158	CHF		47,128		47,694		566
3/15/2012	Bank of America N.A.		22,894,952	EUR		29,715,886		31,320,294		1,604,408
3/15/2012	Bank of America N.A.		116,968	EUR		151,816		156,987		5,171
3/15/2012	Bank of America N.A.		195,979	EUR		254,366		262,684		8,318
3/15/2012	Barclays Bank plc		311,561	EUR		404,382		431,895		27,513
3/15/2012	Barclays Bank plc		132,567	EUR		172,061		178,934		6,873
3/15/2012	Barclays Bank plc		233,937	EUR		303,632		314,425		10,793
3/15/2012	Barclays Bank plc		97,990	EUR		127,183		131,135		3,952
3/15/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		311,561	EUR		404,382		431,776		27,394
3/15/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		1,686,000	EUR		2,188,298		2,265,888		77,590
3/15/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		1,030,000	EUR		1,336,861		1,420,535		83,674
3/15/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		720,000	EUR		934,505		1,022,040		87,535
3/15/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		914,118	EUR		1,186,455		1,229,306		42,851
3/15/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		397,810	EUR		516,327		532,887		16,560
3/15/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		391,958	EUR		508,731		525,318		16,587
3/15/2012	HSBC Bank plc		493,000	EUR		639,876		682,124		42,248
3/15/2012	HSBC Bank plc		132,567	EUR		172,061		178,864		6,803
3/15/2012	State Street Bank & Trust		473,580	EUR		614,670		647,270		32,600
3/15/2012	State Street Bank & Trust		914,118	EUR		1,186,455		1,230,056		43,601
2/21/2012	Bank of America N.A.		29,237,458	GBP		45,401,963		46,107,471		705,508
2/21/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		996,340	GBP		1,547,186		1,563,092		15,906
1/20/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		67,777,276	JPY		880,535		884,353		3,818
1/20/2012	HSBC Bank plc		3,000,000	JPY		38,975		38,735		(240	)
6/19/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		2,451,520	NOK		408,272		407,025		(1,247	)
6/19/2012	State Street Bank & Trust		142,100	NOK		23,665		23,717		52
Net Unrealized Appreciation									$	5,384,900

AUD— Australian Dollar

CHF— Swiss Franc

EUR— Euro

GBP— British Pound

JPY—Japanese Yen

NOK—Norwegian Krone

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

7. Options Written

The options contracts outstanding as of December 31, 2011 and the description and unrealized appreciation were as follows:

Exchange Traded Options Written-Calls	Expiration Date		Strike Price		Number of Contracts		Premiums Received			Valuation as of December 31, 2011			Unrealized Depreciation
Google, Inc. - Class A		02/18/2012		645		15	$	(30,375	)	$	(42,300	)	$	(11,925	)
Total							$	(30,375	)	$	(42,300	)	$	(11,925	)

The Portfolio transactions in options written during the period ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Put Options	Number of Contracts			Premium received
Options outstanding December 31, 2010		—		$	—
Options written		286			54,628
Options expired		(271	)		(24,253	)
Options outstanding December 31, 2011		15		$	30,375

8. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

9. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

10. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income				Long-Term Capital Gains				Total
2011		2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$	55,383,019	$	11,446,216	$	32,691,006	$	—	$	88,074,025	$	11,446,216

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

10. Income Tax Information - continued

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards and Post October Loss Deferrals		Total
$16,155,357	$	106,434,139	$	27,859,432	$	—	$	150,448,928

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses. At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not have any capital loss carryforwards.

11. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

25

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”), as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 28, 2012

26

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

27

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

28

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

29

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

30

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the one- year period ended June 30, 2011, and outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and underperformed its Lipper Index for the three- year period ended June 30, 2011. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the S&P 500 Index, for the one- and three- year periods ended September 30, 2011. The Board also took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance, including the impact of current market conditions on its investment style. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s moderate underperformance was being reasonably addressed and/or monitored.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to

31

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were above the Expense Group median, the Expense Universe median, and the Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were above the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were above the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Adviser had reduced the Portfolio’s sub-advisory fee schedule through the implementation of a breakpoint, effective January 1, 2011. The Board also noted that effective January 1, 2011, the Adviser began waiving an additional portion of its advisory fee on assets over $1 billion in order for shareholders to benefit from the breakpoint being implemented at the sub-advisory fee level. The Board also took into account management’s discussion of expenses, including the type of fund. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule

32

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

With respect to the Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee does not contain breakpoints. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s management fees were above the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board considered the effect of the Portfolio’s current size and potential growth on its performance and fees. The Board noted management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s advisory fee structure. The Board also noted that if the Portfolio’s assets increased over time, the Portfolio might realize other economies of scale if assets increased proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio was reasonable and appropriate.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

33

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio

Managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A and B shares of the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio returned -1.46% and -1.76%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Index¹, returned 2.11%.

Economic and Market Review

Economic and political unrest around the world caused sudden and often sharp shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. As a result, riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit based bonds were extremely volatile throughout the year. Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates. Below investment grade bonds experienced a sharp sell-off during the third quarter as investors feared that the European credit crisis might spread and derail the already fragile global economic recovery, but high yield bonds recovered fully in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a tepid, but respectable 5.0% total return. Foreign bonds had similar returns as domestic bonds; although differences in exchange rates produced variations in the returns of bonds from different countries.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to concerns about the economy and global events. After producing a modest return of 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the full year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index¹. Smaller domestic stocks, as measured by the Russell 2000 Index, were down 4.2% for the year. Growth style stocks performed modestly better than value style stocks. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis. Stocks in Europe were hurt by both a drop in prices and a stronger dollar, which made these stocks less valuable to the dollar based investors.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

The Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio is a “fund of funds” consisting of three portfolios of the Met Investors Series Trust subadvised by the Franklin Templeton organization: the Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio, the Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio, and the Met/Franklin Income Portfolio. The Portfolio’s strategy is to hold one-third of its assets in each of the underlying portfolios and to rebalance the Portfolio on a quarterly basis. The primary causes of the Portfolio’s underperformance relative to its benchmark the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index¹ were the inclusion of foreign stocks and weak overall stock selection across the underlying portfolios.

The Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio invested in both domestic and foreign stocks during the year. An above index allocation to and good stock selection in the traditionally defensive Health Care sector benefited relative performance. Pharmaceuticals stocks, including U.S.-based Pfizer and Amgen, constituted four of the Portfolio’s top ten contributors. From a geographic perspective, an overweighting in Europe and underweighting in North America hurt performance compared to the global equity benchmark. The positive benefit of below index allocation to poor performing Japan was outweighed by stock-specific weakness in that country.

The Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio’s performance was negatively impacted by several individual holdings, including Bank of America, computer and printer manufacturer Hewlett Packard, and industrial conglomerate ThyssenKrupp (Germany). Among the Portfolio’s top contributors for 2011 were managed care company UnitedHealth Group, Marathon Oil, and cigarette manufacturer British American Tobacco (“BAT”) (U.K.). While equities remained the core of the Portfolio, the manager found some interesting opportunities in the distressed debt area.

The Met/Franklin Income Portfolio invested in a combination of equity and fixed income instruments, including a significant position to below investment grade bonds. Within fixed income, key individual contributors included financing solutions specialist CIT Group, oil and natural gas producer Chesapeake Energy, and hospital operator HCA. Major fixed income detractors included electricity provider Texas Competitive Electric Holdings, petroleum refiner Petroplus Finance (Bermuda) and American Airlines’ parent AMR. Within the equity segment of the Portfolio, good selection in the Utilities (The Southern Co. and Progress Energy), Health Care (Roche Holding (Switzerland), Pfizer and Merck & Co.), and Energy (Exxon Mobil) sectors helped performance. Performance was hurt by security selection in the Financial Services (Bank of America, CitiGroup and JPMorgan Chase) and Materials (Cemex Mexico) sectors.

Investment Committee

MetLife Advisers, LLC

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio and market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are as December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions. MetLife Advisers undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statements) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation, or country diversification (or that of the underlying portfolios used in the Portfolio) is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management,

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio

Managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

distribution and operating expenses applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Met/Franklin Income Portfolio (Class A)		34.4
Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio (Class A)		34.1
Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio (Class A)		31.5

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio

Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio managed by

MetLife Advisers, LLC vs. S&P 500 Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		Since Inception3
Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio—Class A		-1.46%		-0.11%
Class B		-1.76%		-0.36%
S&P 500 Index1		2.11%		-0.62%

The performance of Class B shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other class because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹ The Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Index is an unmanaged index representing the performance of 500 major companies, most of which are listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

²“Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

³Inception of the Class A and Class B shares is 4/28/2008. Index returns are based on an inception date of 4/28/2008.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A(a)(b)
Actual		0.47%	$	1,000.00	$	924.70	$	2.28
Hypothetical*		0.47%		1,000.00		1,022.83		2.40
Class B(a)(b)
Actual		0.72%	$	1,000.00	$	922.50	$	3.49
Hypothetical*		0.72%		1,000.00		1,021.57		3.67

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

(a) The annualized expense ratio reflects the expenses of both the Portfolio and the Underlying Portfolios in which it invests.

(b) The annualized expense ratio shown reflects an expense limitation agreement between MetLife Advisers, LLC and the Portfolio as described in Note 3 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Mutual Funds—100.0% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Affiliated Investment Companies—100.0%
Met/Franklin Income Portfolio (Class A)(a)		29,936,615	$	305,054,110
Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio (Class A)(a)		37,009,206		301,995,124
Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio (Class A)(a)		32,412,738		279,397,799
Total Mutual Funds (Cost $801,036,712)				886,447,033
Total Investments—100.0% (Cost $801,036,712#)				886,447,033
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—0.0%				(254,599	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	886,192,434

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $818,245,009. The aggregate and net unrealized appreciation of investments was $68,202,024 for federal income tax purposes.

(a) A Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust. (See Note 7 to Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in the investments of affiliated issuers.)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Finanical Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Mutual Funds
Affiliated Investment Companies	$	886,447,033	$	—	$	—	$	886,447,033
Total Investments	$	886,447,033	$	—	$	—	$	886,447,033

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Affiliated investments at value (a)	$	886,447,033
Receivable from Adviser		9,976
Receivable for shares sold		359,095
Total assets		886,816,104
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		193,715
Shares redeemed		165,381
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		34,135
Distribution and service fees - Class B		182,376
Administration fees		2,000
Custodian and accounting fees		2,067
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		18,929
Total liabilities		623,670
Net Assets	$	886,192,434
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	765,723,722
Accumulated net realized loss		(2,013,723	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments		85,410,321
Undistributed net investment income		37,072,114
Net Assets	$	886,192,434
Net Assets
Class A	$	21,068,377
Class B		865,124,057
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		2,198,929
Class B		90,841,318
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	9.58
Class B		9.52

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of affiliated investments was $801,036,712.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios	$	27,720,140
Total investment income		27,720,140
Expenses
Management fees		408,116
Administration fees		24,000
Custodian and accounting fees		24,800
Distribution and service fees - Class B		2,225,811
Audit and tax services		24,536
Legal		33,758
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Miscellaneous		4,902
Total expenses		2,781,347
Less expenses reimbursed by the Adviser		(107,891	)
Net expenses		2,673,456
Net investment income		25,046,684
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Affiliated Investments
Net realized gain on:
Investments		343,361
Capital gain distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		25,090,649
Net realized gain on investments and capital gain distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		25,434,010
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments		(69,299,595	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments		(43,865,585	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(18,818,901	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	25,046,684		$	11,460,544
Net realized gain (loss) on investments and capital gain distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		25,434,010			(424,295	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments		(69,299,595	)		62,696,161
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations		(18,818,901	)		73,732,410
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(33,126	)		—
Class B		(15,257,710	)		—
From net realized capital gains
Class A		(1,682	)		(4	)
Class B		(867,302	)		(2,521	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(16,159,820	)		(2,525	)
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		71,022,115			110,477,374
Net Increase in Net Assets		36,043,394			184,207,259
Net assets at beginning of period		850,149,040			665,941,781
Net assets at end of period	$	886,192,434		$	850,149,040
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	37,072,114		$	15,274,104

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		2,058,289		$	19,931,798			49,637		$	453,268
Reinvestments		3,353			34,808			1			4
Redemptions		(17,847	)		(174,764	)		(11,176	)		(101,917	)
Net increase		2,043,795		$	19,791,842			38,462		$	351,355
Class B
Sales		15,030,804		$	150,264,348			21,533,559		$	197,066,258
Reinvestments		1,559,479			16,125,012			267			2,521
Redemptions		(11,804,772	)		(115,159,087	)		(9,705,862	)		(86,942,760	)
Net increase		4,785,511		$	51,230,273			11,827,964		$	110,126,019
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	71,022,115					$	110,477,374

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	9.91		$	8.98		$	6.97		$	10.00
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (loss)(a)		0.10			0.16			(0.00	)+		0.08
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.23	)		0.77			2.01			(2.97	)
Total from investment operations		(0.13	)		0.93			2.01			(2.89	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.19	)		0.00			0.00			(0.14	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.01	)		(0.00	)++		0.00			0.00
Total distributions		(0.20	)		(0.00	)++		0.00			(0.14	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	9.58		$	9.91		$	8.98		$	6.97
Total Return (%)		(1.46	)		10.36			28.84			(28.92	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)(c)		0.06			0.07			0.08			0.44	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(d)(e)		0.05			0.05			0.05			0.05	*
Ratio of net investment income (loss) to average net assets (%)(f)		1.04			1.72			(0.04	)		1.23	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		5.9			5.3			6.7			4.4
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	21.1		$	1.5		$	1.0		$	0.3

Selected per share data	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	9.86		$	8.96		$	6.97		$	10.00
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (loss)(a)		0.28			0.14			(0.02	)		0.26
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.44	)		0.76			2.01			(3.16	)
Total from investment operations		(0.16	)		0.90			1.99			(2.90	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.17	)		0.00			0.00			(0.13	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.01	)		(0.00	)++		0.00			0.00
Total distributions		(0.18	)		(0.00	)++		0.00			(0.13	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	9.52		$	9.86		$	8.96		$	6.97
Total Return (%)		(1.76	)		10.05			28.55			(28.98	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)(c)		0.31			0.32			0.33			0.38	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(d)(e)		0.30			0.30			0.30			0.30	*
Ratio of net investment income (loss) to average net assets (%)(f)		2.81			1.57			(0.29	)		4.97	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		5.9			5.3			6.7			4.4
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	865.1		$	848.6		$	664.9		$	276.3

* Annualized.

+ Net investment loss was less than $0.01.

++ Distributions from net realized capital gains were less than $0.01.

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Commencement of operations was 4/28/2008.

(c) See Note 3 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

(d) The ratio of operating expenses to average net assets does not include expenses of the Underlying Portfolios in which the Portfolio invests.

(e) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

(f) Recognition of net investment income by the Portfolio is affected by the timing of the declaration of dividends by the Underlying Portfolios in which it invests.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A and B Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

The Portfolio is a “fund of funds” that invests, on a fixed percentage basis, in a combination of the Trust’s portfolios sub-advised by subsidiaries of Franklin Resources, Inc. (collectively, “Franklin Templeton”), which, in turn, invest primarily in U.S. and foreign equity securities and, to a lesser extent, fixed-income and money market securities. The Portfolio’s assets will be allocated on an equal basis (33 ¹/3%) among the Met/Franklin Income Portfolio, Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio and Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio (the “Underlying Portfolios”), each of which is a separate portfolio of the Trust. The Portfolio may deviate from its percentage allocations as a result of appreciation or depreciation in the value of the shares of the Underlying Portfolios it holds.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Valuation - Investments in the Underlying Portfolios are valued at their closing daily net asset value. The net asset value of the Portfolio is calculated based on the net asset values of the Underlying Portfolios in which the Portfolio invests. For information about the use of fair value pricing by the Underlying Portfolios, please refer to the prospectuses of the Underlying Portfolios.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - The Portfolio’s security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date. Interest income is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Capital gains distributions received from the Underlying Portfolios are recorded as net realized gain in the Statement of Operations.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to short-term capital gain distributions received from underlying portfolios, deferred trustees’ compensation, and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year  ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$408,116		0.05	%	First $500 Million
		0.04	%	$500 Million to $1 Billion
		0.03	%	Over $1 Billion

In addition to the above management fees paid to the Adviser, the Portfolio indirectly pays MetLife Advisers a management fee through its investments in the Underlying Portfolios.

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Expense Limitation Agreement - The Adviser has entered into an expense limitation agreement with the Trust (“Expense Limitation Agreement”) in the interest of limiting expenses of the Portfolio. The Expense Limitation Agreement shall continue in effect with respect to the Portfolio until October 31, 2012. Pursuant to that Expense Limitation Agreement, the Adviser has agreed to waive or limit its fees and to assume other expenses so that the total annual operating expenses of the Portfolio other than interest, taxes, brokerage commissions, other expenditures which are capitalized or expensed in accordance with GAAP, other extraordinary expenses not incurred in the ordinary course of the Portfolio’s business, and Underlying Portfolios’ fees and expenses but including amounts payable pursuant to a plan adopted in accordance with Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act, are limited to the following expense ratios as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets:

				Expenses Deferred in
Maximum Expense Ratio under current Expense Limitation  Agreement				2008		2009		2010		2011
				Subject to repayment until December 31,
Class A	Class B			2013		2014		2015		2016
0.05%		0.30	%	$	85,140	$	133,123	$	121,824	$	107,891

As of December 31, 2011, there were no expenses repaid to the Adviser in accordance with the Expense Limitation Agreement. Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as expenses reimbursed by the Adviser in the Statement of Operations.

If in any year in which the Management Agreement is still in effect, the estimated aggregate operating expenses of the Portfolio for the fiscal year are less than the Maximum Expense Ratios for that year, subject to approval by the Trust’s Board, the Adviser shall be entitled to reimbursement by the Portfolio to the extent that the charge does not cause the expenses in such subsequent year to exceed the Maximum Expense Ratios as stated above. The Portfolio is not obligated to repay any expense paid by the Adviser more than five years after the end of the fiscal year in which such expense was incurred. As of December 31, 2011, there was $447,978 in expense deferrals eligible for recoupment by the Adviser.

Distribution Agreement and Plan - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A and Class B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B distribution plan provides that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B Shares. However, under the Class B distribution agreement, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B distribution plan are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B distribution plan and distribution agreement, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of the Underlying Portfolios by the Portfolio, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$—	$	158,553,008	$	—	$	53,533,127

5. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Underlying Portfolios invest in securities and enter into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Underlying Portfolios may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Underlying Portfolios; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Underlying Portfolios may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Underlying Portfolios have unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Underlying Portfolios to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Underlying Portfolios restrict their exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom they undertake a significant volume of transactions. The Underlying Portfolios reduce the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into master netting arrangements to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Underlying Portfolios’ overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio and in the Underlying Portfolios in which it invests.

7. Transactions in Securities of Affiliated Issuers

The Portfolio does not invest in the Underlying Portfolios for the purpose of exercising control; however, investments by the Portfolio within its principal investment strategies may represent a significant portion of the Underlying Portfolio’s net assets. Transactions in the Underlying Portfolios for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Underlying Portfolio (Class A)	Number of shares held at December 31, 2010		Shares purchased		Shares sold			Number of shares held at December 31, 2011
Met/Franklin Income Portfolio*		26,827,002		5,205,586		(2,095,973	)		29,936,615
Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio*		31,252,535		7,516,035		(1,759,364	)		37,009,206
Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio*		30,291,990		4,020,377		(1,899,629	)		32,412,738

* The Portfolio had ownership of at least 25% of the outstanding voting securities of the Underlying Portfolio as of December 31, 2011. Once filed, the most recent Annual Report of the Underlying Portfolio will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http:// www.sec.gov.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

7. Transactions in Securities of Affiliated Issuers - continued

Underlying Portfolio (Class A)	Net Realized Gain/(Loss) on sales of Underlying Portfolios			Capital Gain Distributions from Underlying Portfolios		Dividend income from Underlying Portfolios		Ending Value as of December 31, 2011
Met/Franklin Income Portfolio	$	1,330,438		$	8,786,210	$	14,610,496	$	305,054,110
Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio		(1,377,448	)		16,304,439		8,698,119		301,995,124
Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio		390,371			—		4,411,525		279,397,799
	$	343,361		$	25,090,649	$	27,720,140	$	886,447,033

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income				Long-Term Capital Gains				Total
2011		2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$	15,290,836	$	—	$	868,984	$	2,525	$	16,159,820	$	2,525

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards		Total
$37,097,181	$	15,194,575	$	68,202,023	$	—	$	120,493,779

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses. At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not have any capital loss carryforwards.

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements - continued

statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the transfer agent. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 28, 2012

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹ As the Adviser has the day-to-day responsibility for managing the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio’s investments, the Board only approved an Advisory Agreement with respect to the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio.

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

The Board considered that an Investment Committee, consisting of investment professionals from across MetLife, meets at least quarterly to review the asset allocations and discuss the performance of the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds and the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio.

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the one- year period ended June 30, 2011, and outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the three- year period ended June 30, 2011. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the S&P 500 Index, for the one- year period ended September 30, 2011, and outperformed its benchmark for the three- year period ended September 30, 2011. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s overall performance was adequate.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the Expense Group median and Expense Universe median. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were equal to the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Adviser reduced its advisory fee through the implementation of additional breakpoints, effective November 12, 2009. The Board noted that the Adviser is waiving fees and/or reimbursing expenses so that the Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses are capped. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

With respect to the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that management had implemented breakpoints with respect to the Portfolio’s advisory fee that reduce the advisory fee on assets above certain specified levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as the Portfolio’s assets increase. The Board also noted that the Adviser is waiving fees and/or reimbursing expenses so that the Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses are capped. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

In addition, the Board reviewed the advisory fee to be paid to the Adviser for the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio and concluded that the advisory fee to be paid to the Adviser with respect to the Portfolio is based on services to be provided that are in addition to, rather than duplicative of, the services provided pursuant to the advisory agreements for the underlying funds in which the Portfolio invests and that the additional services are necessary because of the differences between the investment policies, strategies and techniques of the Portfolio and those of the underlying funds.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

22

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio

Managed by Templeton Global Advisors Limited

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A and B shares of the Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio returned -6.61% and -6.90%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the MSCI World Index¹, returned -5.54%. Since inception on April 26, 2011, the Class E shares of the Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio returned -15.26%. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the MSCI World Index¹, returned -11.50%.

Market Environment/Conditions

Global equities declined in 2011 as economic concerns, political debate and the European sovereign debt crisis contributed to investor anxiety and heightened market volatility. Although equities entered the year supported by corporate earnings momentum and renewed economic stimulus measures in the developed world, several unanticipated events interrupted the market’s rise in the initial months of 2011, including a severe natural disaster and nuclear crisis in Japan as well as unrest across the oil-and-gas-producing regions of the Middle East and North Africa. Global markets recovered quickly from these setbacks, but soon faced more turmoil as Europe’s sovereign debt crisis intensified in the summer months. Portugal, Greece and Ireland had their credit ratings slashed to junk grade during the period following their acceptance of bailouts, while rising bond yields in the larger economies of Italy and Spain, and eventually France, raised uncertainty about the European Monetary Union. The United States’ (“U.S”) sovereign debt issues and political deliberations, accompanied by the downgrade of its AAA credit rating, further pressured investor sentiment as the period progressed, as did concerns over the global banking system and reports suggesting a renewed global economic slowdown, notably in the Chinese economy. Despite elevated volatility in financial markets, corporate profits remained resilient, signs of economic improvement in the U.S. emerged toward year-end, and European policymakers ultimately stepped up their response to sovereign debt issues.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

The Portfolio’s performance in 2011 was attributable to allocations and stock selection among defensive and cyclical sectors. The cyclical Financials and Industrials sectors represented major detractors due to stock-specific weakness. Although we remain cautious about our Financials exposure given the lack of visibility and political risk surrounding the sector, we believe Europe’s debt crisis generated excessive collateral damage, leading to unwarranted downgrades for certain fundamentally sound Asian and well-capitalized U.S. and European financials. Capital spending, however, proved less resilient, pressuring the Portfolio’s Industrials holdings. In our opinion, industrial conglomerates positions including Siemens (Germany) and Philips Electronics (Netherlands) were penalized for challenges in their domestic economies, resulting in depressed valuations that understated these companies’ long-term future earnings potential. We believe many of our Industrials holdings are focusing capital allocation on high-return prospects within a global opportunity set. Among defensive sectors, we found fewer opportunities in Consumer Staples, where we believe the sector’s premium valuation to the broader market average was unjustified given the potential impact on operating and profit margins from growing competitive pressures and volatile input prices. Our resulting underweighting was a detractor from relative performance as investors sought Staples stocks, in our view, for their perceived defensive characteristics. During the period, the U.S. Dollar appreciated against most foreign currencies, which also hurt the Portfolio’s performance because investments in securities with non-U.S. currency exposure lost value as the Dollar rose.

An overweighted allocation and stock selection for the traditionally defensive Health Care sector benefited relative returns. Pharmaceuticals stocks, including U.S.-based Pfizer and Amgen, constituted four of the Portfolio’s top ten contributors. Although we viewed Health Care strength as partly attributable to the market’s defensive rotation, we believed pharmaceuticals valuations at roughly half their long-term average offered further appreciation potential as prices seemingly assigned little or no credit for cost-cutting opportunities, pipeline productivity and global demographics, which we believed to all be potential long-term earnings catalysts. Among cyclical sectors, an underweighting and stock selection in Materials contributed to outperformance. We avoided what we viewed as expensive metals and mining companies and invested instead where we believed valuations understated the strategic and technological advantages of leading oil producers, such as our investment in Royal Dutch Shell (United Kingdom), a top Portfolio performer. Stock selection also helped Consumer Discretionary holdings outperform as consumer spending held up in an environment we believe was characterized by economic pessimism. Share price advances for Consumer Discretionary sector positions such as U.S-based media companies News Corp. and Comcast and automaker Hyundai Motor (South Korea) benefited relative performance.

From a geographic perspective, overweighting in Europe and underweighting in North America weighed on results compared to the benchmark. In addition, stock-specific weakness of Japan-based holdings weighed on returns, and outweighed the benefit of our lower allocation in these holdings. Conversely, stock selection in North America and underweighting in Japan helped relative performance.

As of December 31, 2011, the Portfolio’s largest sector weightings were in Financials, Health Care and Consumer Discretionary. On a regional basis, close to half of the Portfolio’s assets were in Europe, with North America also representing a sizable allocation.

Norman J. Boersma, CFA

Tucker Scott, CFA

Lisa F. Myers, J.D., CFA

Templeton Global Advisors Limited

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio

Managed by Templeton Global Advisors Limited

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Amgen, Inc.		2.4
Pfizer, Inc.		2.4
Comcast Corp. - Special Class A		2.3
Sanofi		2.3
Vodafone Group plc		2.1
GlaxoSmithKline plc		2.0
News Corp. - Class A		2.0
Microsoft Corp.		2.0
Royal Dutch Shell plc - B Shares		2.0
CRH plc		1.7

Top Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Communications		19.7
Non-Cyclical		18.3
Financials		17.4
Energy		11.6
Industrials		10.6
Cyclical		9.7
Technology		9.1
Basic Materials		1.6
Cash & Cash Equivalents		1.4
Diversified		0.6

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio

Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio managed by

Templeton Global Advisors Limited vs. MSCI World Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		Since Inception3
Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio—Class A		-6.61%		-3.12%
Class B		-6.90%		-3.36%
Class E		—		-15.26%
MSCI World Index1		-5.54%		-4.41%

The performance of Class B shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other classes of shares because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹The MSCI World Index is a capitalization weighted index that measures performance of stocks from developed countries around the world. The index returns shown above were calculated with net dividends: they reflect the reinvestment of dividends after the deduction of the maximum possible withholding taxes.

²“Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gains distributions.

³Inception of Class A and Class B shares is 4/28/2008. Inception of Class E shares is 4/26/2011. Index returns are based on an inception date of 4/28/2008.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or

life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A(a)
Actual		0.80%	$	1,000.00	$	858.60	$	3.75
Hypothetical*		0.80%		1,000.00		1,021.17		4.08
Class B(a)
Actual		1.05%	$	1,000.00	$	857.00	$	4.91
Hypothetical*		1.05%		1,000.00		1,019.91		5.35
Class E(a)
Actual		0.95%	$	1,000.00	$	858.40	$	4.45
Hypothetical*		0.95%		1,000.00		1,020.41		4.84

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

(a) The annualized expense ratio reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 3 to the Financial Statements.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—98.2% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—0.4%
BAE Systems plc		377,978	$	1,667,153
Air Freight & Logistics—2.5%
Deutsche Post AG		124,165		1,913,272
FedEx Corp.		39,840		3,327,038
United Parcel Service, Inc.—Class B		80,500		5,891,795
				11,132,105
Airlines—1.9%
Deutsche Lufthansa AG		334,165		3,981,086
International Consolidated Airlines Group S.A.*		1,570,360		3,580,371
International Consolidated Airlines Group S.A.*		442,913		995,296
				8,556,753
Auto Components—0.5%
Cie Generale des Etablissements Michelin—Class B		41,470		2,443,409
Automobiles—1.8%
Mazda Motor Corp.* (a)		1,120,000		1,975,004
Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.		262,700		2,357,266
Toyota Motor Corp.		115,900		3,856,237
				8,188,507
Biotechnology—2.4%
Amgen, Inc.		172,940		11,104,477
Capital Markets—3.0%
Bank of New York Mellon Corp.		48,290		961,454
Credit Suisse Group AG*		156,817		3,686,231
Morgan Stanley		250,400		3,788,552
Nomura Holdings, Inc.		574,300		1,734,582
UBS AG*		295,382		3,514,996
				13,685,815
Chemicals—0.7%
Akzo Nobel N.V.		65,108		3,139,686
Commercial Banks—5.1%
BNP Paribas S.A.		55,210		2,166,208
Credit Agricole S.A.		461,520		2,602,478
Danske Bank A.S.*		27,488		350,836
DBS Group Holdings, Ltd.		342,500		3,039,023
HSBC Holdings plc		413,514		3,130,304
ICICI Bank, Ltd. (ADR)		68,980		1,823,141
Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.		2,390,065		3,978,679
KB Financial Group, Inc.*		105,854		3,342,551
Commercial Banks—(Continued)
UniCredit S.p.A. (a)		333,503	$	2,755,727
				23,188,947
Commercial Services & Supplies—0.3%
Rentokil Initial plc*		1,600,527		1,551,309
Communications Equipment—2.6%
Brocade Communications Systems, Inc.*		422,540		2,192,983
Cisco Systems, Inc.		397,910		7,194,213
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson— Class B		259,204		2,635,409
				12,022,605
Computers & Peripherals—1.6%
Dell, Inc.*		176,240		2,578,391
Seagate Technology plc		284,390		4,663,996
				7,242,387
Construction & Engineering—0.1%
Carillion plc		95,620		444,985
Construction Materials—1.7%
CRH plc		391,653		7,792,908
Consumer Finance—1.1%
American Express Co.		102,660		4,842,472
Diversified Financial Services—2.6%
Bank of America Corp.		199,380		1,108,553
Citigroup, Inc.		138,001		3,630,806
ING Groep N.V.*		666,282		4,758,716
JPMorgan Chase & Co.		70,500		2,344,125
				11,842,200
Diversified Telecommunication Services—5.0%
China Telecom Corp., Ltd. (ADR)		30,950		1,768,173
France Telecom S.A.		266,415		4,178,665
Singapore Telecommunications, Ltd. (a)		2,094,000		4,999,192
Singapore Telecommunications, Ltd.		464,000		1,107,816
Telefonica S.A.		187,548		3,243,910
Telekom Austria AG		69,211		830,776
Telenor ASA		126,466		2,072,238
Vivendi		203,044		4,442,594
				22,643,364
Electrical Equipment—0.8%
Alstom S.A.		122,604		3,705,598

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—1.1%
Flextronics International, Ltd.*		314,210	$	1,778,428
TE Connectivity, Ltd.		97,790		3,012,910
				4,791,338
Energy Equipment & Services—2.2%
Baker Hughes, Inc.		64,990		3,161,114
Halliburton Co.		59,000		2,036,090
Noble Corp.*		100,790		3,045,874
SBM Offshore N.V.		78,600		1,619,326
				9,862,404
Food & Staples Retailing—2.3%
CVS Caremark Corp.		150,168		6,123,851
Tesco plc		724,717		4,538,382
				10,662,233
Food Products—0.2%
Nestle S.A.		11,781		677,607
Unilever N.V.		10,102		347,695
				1,025,302
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—1.2%
Medtronic, Inc.		144,490		5,526,742
Health Care Providers & Services—0.6%
Quest Diagnostics, Inc.		44,740		2,597,604
Household Durables—0.4%
Persimmon plc		248,267		1,805,288
Industrial Conglomerates—3.7%
Citic Pacific, Ltd.		222,000		398,016
General Electric Co.		300,550		5,382,850
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.		275,053		5,776,797
Siemens AG		52,593		5,041,295
				16,598,958
Insurance—5.6%
ACE, Ltd.		46,270		3,244,452
AIA Group, Ltd.		831,200		2,590,638
Aviva plc		868,048		4,031,144
AXA S.A.		326,731		4,220,160
Muenchener Rueckversicherungs AG		29,261		3,597,172
RenaissanceRe Holdings, Ltd. (a)		40,240		2,992,649
Swiss Re, Ltd.*		97,008		4,949,442
				25,625,657
IT Services—0.2%
Cap Gemini S.A.		19,520		608,531
IT Services—(Continued)
SAIC, Inc.*		19,200	$	235,968
				844,499
Life Sciences Tools & Services—0.4%
Lonza Group AG*		29,600		1,744,967
Machinery—0.2%
GEA Group AG		23,610		669,142
Navistar International Corp.*		3,700		140,156
				809,298
Media—7.7%
Comcast Corp.—Special Class A		448,650		10,570,194
News Corp.—Class A		509,170		9,083,593
Reed Elsevier N.V.		129,357		1,507,880
Time Warner Cable, Inc.		75,856		4,822,166
Time Warner, Inc. (a)		65,296		2,359,797
Viacom, Inc.—Class B		78,100		3,546,521
Walt Disney Co. (The)		86,200		3,232,500
				35,122,651
Metals & Mining—0.5%
POSCO		1,560		516,885
Vale S.A. (ADR) (a)		85,020		1,751,412
				2,268,297
Multiline Retail—0.7%
Marks & Spencer Group plc		178,900		863,359
Target Corp.		44,510		2,279,802
				3,143,161
Office Electronics—0.4%
Konica Minolta Holdings, Inc. (a)		220,500		1,641,513
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—9.2%
BP plc		868,351		6,194,625
Chevron Corp.		51,510		5,480,664
ENI S.p.A.		161,044		3,333,905
Gazprom (ADR)		367,460		3,923,778
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (ADR)		69,570		1,634,199
Repsol YPF S.A.		23,945		733,167
Royal Dutch Shell plc—A Shares		2,811		103,377
Royal Dutch Shell plc—B Shares		234,158		8,914,319
Statoil ASA		161,837		4,151,266
Talisman Energy, Inc. (a)		70,500		899,926
Total S.A.		128,704		6,583,896
				41,953,122

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Pharmaceuticals—11.0%
Abbott Laboratories		25,190	$	1,416,434
GlaxoSmithKline plc		399,319		9,108,745
Merck & Co., Inc.		162,440		6,123,988
Merck KGaA		32,206		3,217,890
Novartis AG		35,767		2,046,942
Pfizer, Inc.		502,590		10,876,048
Roche Holding AG		41,425		7,018,398
Sanofi		140,155		10,278,255
				50,086,700
Professional Services—1.1%
Adecco S.A.*		23,468		979,865
Hays plc		583,173		578,012
Randstad Holding N.V.		116,545		3,438,435
				4,996,312
Real Estate Management & Development—0.6%
Cheung Kong Holdings, Ltd.		96,000		1,139,303
Swire Pacific, Ltd.—Class A		116,000		1,397,443
				2,536,746
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—2.4%
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.		7,201		6,614,305
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (ADR)		323,289		4,173,661
				10,787,966
Software—5.4%
Check Point Software Technologies, Ltd.* (a)		34,030		1,787,936
Microsoft Corp.		344,250		8,936,730
Nintendo Co., Ltd.		23,538		3,244,032
Oracle Corp.		208,340		5,343,921
SAP AG		99,995		5,298,910
				24,611,529
Specialty Retail—2.0%
Home Depot, Inc. (The)		66,800		2,808,272
Kingfisher plc		1,245,702		4,844,681
USS Co., Ltd.		15,990		1,444,714
				9,097,667
Trading Companies & Distributors—1.0%
ITOCHU Corp.		175,100		1,775,047
Wolseley plc		85,255		2,810,998
				4,586,045
Wireless Telecommunication Services—4.0%
China Mobile, Ltd.		142,500	$	1,389,326
Sprint Nextel Corp.*		1,598,740		3,741,052
Turkcell Iletisim Hizmetleri A.S. (ADR)*		292,840		3,443,798
Vodafone Group plc		3,509,496		9,747,076
				18,321,252
Total Common Stocks (Cost $469,298,584)				446,241,931

Short-Term Investments—4.3%
Mutual Funds—2.9%
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (b)		13,095,647		13,095,647
Repurchase Agreement—1.4%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $6,324,007 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $6,210,000 U.S. Treasury Note at 1.875% due 02/28/14 with a value of $6,450,638.	$	6,324,000		6,324,000
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $19,419,647)				19,419,647
Total Investments—102.5% (Cost $488,718,231#)				465,661,578
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(2.5)%				(11,574,420	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	454,087,158

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $488,825,771. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $42,527,866 and $(65,692,059), respectively, resulting in net unrealized depreciation of $(23,164,193) for federal income tax purposes.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities loaned was $14,151,300 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $13,095,647 and non-cash collateral with a value of $1,819,206. The cash collateral is invested in a money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The non-cash collateral received consists primarily of government securities and bank letters of credit, and are held for the benefit of the Portfolio

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

at the Portfolio’s custodian. The Portfolio cannot repledge or resell this collateral. As such, this collateral is excluded from the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

(b) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities lending transactions.

(ADR)— An American Depositary Receipt is a certificate issued by a custodian bank representing the right to receive securities of the foreign issuer described. Trading on exchanges not located in the United States or Canada significantly influences the value of ADRs.

Countries  Diversification as of December 31, 2011 (Unaudited)
	% of Market Value of Total Investments
United States		36.1
United Kingdom		13.5
France		9.3
Switzerland		7.6
Netherlands		4.6
Germany		4.4
Japan		4.1
Ireland		2.8
Singapore		2.5
Others		15.1

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Common Stocks
Aerospace & Defense	$	—	$	1,667,153	$	—	$	1,667,153
Air Freight & Logistics		9,218,833		1,913,272		—		11,132,105
Airlines		—		8,556,753		—		8,556,753
Auto Components		—		2,443,409		—		2,443,409
Automobiles		—		8,188,507		—		8,188,507
Biotechnology		11,104,477		—		—		11,104,477
Capital Markets		4,750,006		8,935,809		—		13,685,815
Chemicals		—		3,139,686		—		3,139,686
Commercial Banks		1,823,141		21,365,806		—		23,188,947
Commercial Services & Supplies		—		1,551,309		—		1,551,309
Communications Equipment		9,387,196		2,635,409		—		12,022,605
Computers & Peripherals		7,242,387		—		—		7,242,387
Construction & Engineering		—		444,985		—		444,985
Construction Materials		—		7,792,908		—		7,792,908
Consumer Finance		4,842,472		—		—		4,842,472
Diversified Financial Services		7,083,484		4,758,716		—		11,842,200
Diversified Telecommunication Services		1,768,173		20,875,191		—		22,643,364
Electrical Equipment		—		3,705,598		—		3,705,598
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components		4,791,338		—		—		4,791,338
Energy Equipment & Services		8,243,078		1,619,326		—		9,862,404
Food & Staples Retailing		6,123,851		4,538,382		—		10,662,233
Food Products		—		1,025,302		—		1,025,302
Health Care Equipment & Supplies		5,526,742		—		—		5,526,742
Health Care Providers & Services		2,597,604		—		—		2,597,604
Household Durables		—		1,805,288		—		1,805,288
Industrial Conglomerates		5,382,850		11,216,108		—		16,598,958
Insurance		6,237,101		19,388,556		—		25,625,657
IT Services		235,968		608,531		—		844,499
Life Sciences Tools & Services		—		1,744,967		—		1,744,967
Machinery		140,156		669,142		—		809,298
Media		33,614,771		1,507,880		—		35,122,651

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY—(Continued)

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Metals & Mining	$	1,751,412	$	516,885	$	—	$	2,268,297
Multiline Retail		2,279,802		863,359		—		3,143,161
Office Electronics		—		1,641,513		—		1,641,513
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels		11,702,511		30,250,611		—		41,953,122
Pharmaceuticals		18,416,470		31,670,230		—		50,086,700
Professional Services		—		4,996,312		—		4,996,312
Real Estate Management & Development		—		2,536,746		—		2,536,746
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment		4,173,661		6,614,305		—		10,787,966
Software		16,068,587		8,542,942		—		24,611,529
Specialty Retail		2,808,272		6,289,395		—		9,097,667
Trading Companies & Distributors		—		4,586,045		—		4,586,045
Wireless Telecommunication Services		7,184,850		11,136,402		—		18,321,252
Total Common Stocks		194,499,193		251,742,738		—		446,241,931
Short-Term Investments
Mutual Funds		13,095,647		—		—		13,095,647
Repurchase Agreement		—		6,324,000		—		6,324,000
Total Short-Term Investments		13,095,647		6,324,000		—		19,419,647
Total Investments	$	207,594,840	$	258,066,738	$	—	$	465,661,578

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)(b)	$	459,337,578
Repurchase Agreement		6,324,000
Cash		762
Cash denominated in foreign currencies (c)		1,169,786
Receivable for investments sold		16,683
Receivable for shares sold		225,284
Dividends receivable		991,906
Total assets		468,065,999
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		97
Shares redeemed		499,280
Collateral for securities loaned		13,095,647
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		253,009
Distribution and service fees - Class B		30,339
Distribution and service fees - Class E		3,988
Administration fees		2,137
Custodian and accounting fees		16,379
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		52,898
Total liabilities		13,978,841
Net Assets	$	454,087,158
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	450,822,870
Accumulated net realized gain		18,204,967
Unrealized depreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		(23,092,298	)
Undistributed net investment income		8,151,619
Net Assets	$	454,087,158
Net Assets
Class A	$	281,617,284
Class B		142,703,069
Class E		29,766,805
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		32,675,045
Class B		16,643,474
Class E		3,458,927
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	8.62
Class B		8.57
Class E		8.61

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreement, was $482,394,231.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $14,151,300.

(c) Identified cost of cash denominated in foreign currencies was $1,195,340.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	12,657,297
Interest (b)		309,714
Total investment income		12,967,011
Expenses
Management fees		3,061,677
Administration fees		25,298
Deferred Expense Reimbursement		175,377
Custodian and accounting fees		245,921
Distribution and service fees - Class B		323,389
Distribution and service fees - Class E		38,775
Audit and tax services		43,829
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Shareholder reporting		67,859
Insurance		1,865
Miscellaneous		8,313
Total expenses		4,061,013
Less management fee waiver		(107,387	)
Less broker commission recapture		(34	)
Net expenses		3,953,592
Net investment income		9,013,419
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments and Foreign Currency Transactions
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments		22,243,788
Foreign currency transactions		(95,180	)
Net realized gain on investments and foreign currency transactions		22,148,608
Net change in unrealized depreciation on:
Investments		(79,239,374	)
Foreign currency transactions		(63,225	)
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		(79,302,599	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments and foreign currency transactions		(57,153,991	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(48,140,572	)

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $884,353.

(b) Includes net income on securities loaned of $307,501.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	9,013,419		$	4,708,107
Net realized gain on investments and foreign currency transactions		22,148,608			1,089,722
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments and foreign currency transactions		(79,302,599	)		19,688,513
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations		(48,140,572	)		25,486,342
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(4,433,348	)		(2,934,574	)
Class B		(1,065,614	)		(264,975	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(5,498,962	)		(3,199,549	)
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		145,355,132			95,227,364
Net Increase in Net Assets		91,715,598			117,514,157
Net assets at beginning of period		362,371,560			244,857,403
Net assets at end of period	$	454,087,158		$	362,371,560
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	8,151,619		$	4,233,835

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		3,688,060		$	34,832,797			5,737,544		$	49,694,671
Fund subscription in kind (b)		75,234			778,675			—			—
Reinvestments		442,009			4,433,348			326,790			2,934,574
Redemptions		(1,937,562	)		(18,145,975	)		(1,289,829	)		(10,498,035	)
Net increase		2,267,741		$	21,898,845			4,774,505		$	42,131,210
Class B
Sales		2,680,994		$	24,808,399			7,442,816		$	64,761,077
Fund subscription in kind (b)		8,764,190			90,358,797			—			—
Reinvestments		106,668			1,065,614			29,606			264,975
Redemptions		(3,268,639	)		(30,421,557	)		(1,396,203	)		(11,929,898	)
Net increase		8,283,213		$	85,811,253			6,076,219		$	53,096,154
Class E (a)
Sales		137,923		$	1,219,968			—		$	—
Fund subscription in kind (c)		4,944,604			51,127,201			—			—
Redemptions		(1,623,600	)		(14,702,135	)		—			—
Net increase		3,458,927		$	37,645,034			—		$	—
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	145,355,132					$	95,227,364

(a) Commencement of operations was 4/26/11.

(b) Includes cash and securities amounting to $5,051,596 and $86,085,876, respectively. Securities were valued at market as of April 29, 2011.

(c) Includes cash and securities amounting to $3,584,710 and $47,542,491, respectively. Securities were valued at market as of April 29, 2011.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	9.36		$	8.77		$	6.60		$	10.00
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.19			0.14			0.13			0.07
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.79	)		0.56			2.04			(3.43	)
Total from investment operations		(0.60	)		0.70			2.17			(3.36	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.14	)		(0.11	)		(0.00	)+		(0.04	)
Total distributions		(0.14	)		(0.11	)		(0.00	)+		(0.04	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	8.62		$	9.36		$	8.77		$	6.60
Total Return (%)		(6.61	)		7.88			33.08			(33.62	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.82			0.82			0.87			1.27	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)		0.80			0.80			0.80			0.80	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.04			1.64			1.69			1.41	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		23.2			3.7			3.0			2.7
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	281.6		$	284.5		$	224.9		$	94.1

	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	9.32		$	8.75		$	6.60		$	10.00
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.17			0.12			0.10			0.06
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.79	)		0.55			2.05			(3.43	)
Total from investment operations		(0.62	)		0.67			2.15			(3.37	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.13	)		(0.10	)		(0.00	)+		(0.03	)
Total distributions		(0.13	)		(0.10	)		(0.00	)+		(0.03	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	8.57		$	9.32		$	8.75		$	6.60
Total Return (%)		(6.90	)		7.66			32.62			(33.67	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.07			1.07			1.12			1.54	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)		1.05			1.05			1.05			1.05	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.88			1.41			1.33			1.11	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		23.2			3.7			3.0			2.7
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	142.7		$	77.9		$	20.0		$	4.8

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31, 2011(d)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.16
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.14
Net realized and unrealized loss on investment activities		(1.69	)
Total from investment operations		(1.55	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		0.00
Total distributions		0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	8.61
Total Return (%)		(15.26	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.97	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)		0.95	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.18	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		23.2
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	29.8

* Annualized.

+ Distributions from net investment income were less than $0.01.

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Commencement of operations was 4/28/2008.

(c) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

(d) Commencement of operations was 4/26/2011.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“Metlife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A, B and E Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to foreign currency transactions, passive foreign investment companies (PFICs), deferred trustees’ compensation, and capital loss carryforwards as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Securities Lending - The Portfolio may lend its portfolio securities to certain qualified brokers who borrow securities in order to complete certain securities transactions. By lending its portfolio securities, the Portfolio attempts to increase its net investment income through the receipt of income on the loaned securities. Any gain or loss in the market price of the loaned securities that might occur and any interest earned or dividends declared during the term of the loan would accrue to the account of the Portfolio.

The Trust has entered into a securities lending arrangement with the custodian, State Street Bank and Trust Company (the “custodian”). Under this arrangement, the custodian is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral at least equal to 102% of the market value of the loaned securities (105% for foreign equity securities), at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities must be maintained for the duration of the loan. Cash collateral is generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The Navigator Portfolio is a registered money market fund which invests in a variety of high quality U.S. dollar-denominated instruments. If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower shall be required to deliver, by the close of business on the following business day, an additional amount of collateral so that the total amount of posted collateral equals at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of net income (income after the deduction of expenses and fees of the Navigator Portfolio) on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the custodian and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by U.S. Treasuries, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the custodian. The risks associated with lending portfolio securities include, but are not limited to, possible delays in receiving additional collateral or in the recovery of the loaned securities, possible loss of rights in the collateral should the borrower fail financially, as well as risk of loss in the value of the collateral or the value of the investments made with the collateral. Net interest income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2011 is disclosed in the footnotes to the Statement of Operations. Any outstanding loans by the Portfolio at December 31, 2011 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments.

Foreign Currency Translation - The books and records of the Portfolio are maintained in U.S. dollars. The values of securities, currencies and other assets and liabilities denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars are translated into U.S. dollars based upon foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period. Purchases and sales of investment securities, income and expenses are translated on the respective dates of such transactions. Since the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, it is not practical to isolate that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates from that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities. Such fluctuations are included in the net realized and unrealized gain or loss on investments.

Net realized foreign exchange gains or losses arise from activity in forward foreign currency exchange contracts, sales of foreign currency, currency gains or losses realized between the trade and settlement dates on securities transactions, and the difference between the amounts of dividends, interest, and foreign withholding taxes recorded by the Portfolio and the U.S. dollar equivalent of the amounts actually received or paid by the Portfolio. Gains and losses attributable to foreign currency exchange rates on sales of securities are recorded as Net realized gains and losses on investments. Net unrealized foreign exchange gains and losses arise from changes in the value of assets and liabilities, other than investment securities, resulting from changes in foreign exchange rates.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with Templeton Global Advisors Limited (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$3,061,677		0.700	%	First $100 Million
		0.680	%	$100 Million to $250 Million
		0.670	%	$250 Million to $500 Million
		0.660	%	$500 Million to $750 Million
		0.650	%	Over $750 Million

The subadvisory fee the Adviser pays to the subadviser in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio is calculated based on the aggregate average daily net assets of the Portfolio and certain other portfolios of the Trust that are managed by the Subadviser and/or its affiliates.

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Management Fee Waiver - The subadvisory fee the Adviser pays to the subadviser in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio is calculated based on the aggregate average daily net assets of the Portfolio and certain other portfolios of the Trust that are managed by the Subadviser and/or its affiliates.

From January 1, 2011 through February 28, 2011, the Adviser voluntarily agreed to waive a portion of the management fee reflecting the difference, if any, between the subadvisory fee payable by the Adviser to the Subadviser that was calculated based solely on the assets of the Portfolio and the fee that was calculated when the Portfolio’s assets were aggregated with those of the Met/Franklin Income Portfolio and Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio, each a series of the Trust.

From March 1, 2011 through April 30, 2011, the Adviser voluntarily agreed to waive a portion of the management fee reflecting the difference, if any, between the subadvisory fee payable by the Adviser to the Subadviser that was calculated based solely on the assets of the Portfolio and the fee that was calculated when the Portfolio’s assets were aggregated with those of the Met/Franklin Income Portfolio, Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio and Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio, each a series of the Trust.

From May 1, 2011 through May 23, 2011, the Adviser contractually agreed to waive a portion of the management fee reflecting the difference, if any, between the subadvisory fee payable by the Adviser to the Subadviser that was calculated based solely on the assets of the Portfolio and the fee that was calculated when the Portfolio’s assets were aggregated with those of the Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio, Met/Franklin Income Portfolio and Met/Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio, each a series of the Trust. Over the same period of time, the assets of Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio were included on a voluntary basis for purposing of determining the amount of the management fee waiver. Effective May 24, 2011, the assets of Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio were contractually added to the calculation of the management fee waiver.

Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as a management fee waiver in the Statement of Operations.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Expense Limitation Agreement - The Adviser has entered into an expense limitation agreement with the Trust (“Expense Limitation Agreement”) in the interest of limiting expenses of the Portfolio. The Expense Limitation Agreement shall continue in effect with respect to the Portfolio until October 31, 2012. Pursuant to that Expense Limitation Agreement, the Adviser has agreed to waive or limit its fees and to assume other expenses so that the total annual operating expenses of the Portfolio other than interest, taxes, brokerage commissions, other expenditures which are capitalized or expensed in accordance with GAAP, other extraordinary expenses not incurred in the ordinary course of the Portfolio’s business and acquired fund fees and expenses but including amounts payable pursuant to a plan adopted in accordance with Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act, are limited to the following expense ratios as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets:

Maximum Expense Ratio under current Expense Limitation  Agreement
Class A	Class B			Class E
0.80%		1.05	%		0.95	%

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

If in any year in which the Management Agreement is still in effect, the estimated aggregate operating expenses of the Portfolio for the fiscal year are less than the Maximum Expense Ratios for that year, subject to approval by the Trust’s Board, the Adviser shall be entitled to reimbursement by the Portfolio to the extent that the charge does not cause the expenses in such subsequent year to exceed the Maximum Expense Ratios as stated above. The Portfolio is not obligated to repay any expense paid by the Adviser more than five years after the end of the fiscal year in which such expense was incurred.

As of December 31, 2011, there were no expenses deferred in 2011 and $175,377 was repaid to the Adviser in accordance with the Expense Limitation Agreement. The amount of expenses deferred in 2008, which were recovered during the year ended December 31, 2011 was $100,020. The amount of expenses deferred in 2009, which were recovered during the year ended December 31, 2011 was $75,357. Amounts recouped for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Deferred expense reimbursement in the Statement of Operations.

Distribution Agreements and Plans - The Trust has distribution agreements with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A, Class B and Class E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B and Class E distribution plans provide that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% and 0.25%, respectively, of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B and Class E Shares. However, under the Class B and Class E distribution agreements, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B and Class E distribution plans are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% and 0.15% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares, respectively. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B and Class E distribution plans and distribution agreements, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B and Class E Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. as designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government
$—	$	129,059,640	$—	$	103,225,349

The Portfolio engaged in security transactions with other accounts managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC that amounted to $418,954 in purchases of investments which is included above.

5. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk - continued

The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

7. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income				Long-Term Capital Gains				Total
2011		2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$	5,498,962	$	3,199,549	$	—	$	—	$	5,498,962	$	3,199,549

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Depreciation			Loss Carryforwards and Deferrals		Total
$8,416,283	$	18,072,910	$	(23,199,838	)	$	—	$	3,289,355

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses. At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not have any capital loss carryforwards.

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”), as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 23, 2012

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

25

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe for the one- and three- year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board also considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the MSCI World Index, for the one-year period ended September 30, 2011, and outperformed its benchmark for the three- year period ended September 30, 2011. The Board took into account the fact that there was a portfolio manager change in March 2011. The Board considered management’s continued monitoring of the Portfolio’s performance. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s overall performance was satisfactory.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to

26

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees were below the median of the Expense Group, the Expense Universe and the Sub-advised Expense Universe. The Board also considered that the Portfolio’s total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the median of the Expense Group and the Sub-advised Expense Universe, and equal to the median of the Expense Universe. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were below the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board noted that the Adviser is waiving fees and/or reimbursing expenses so that the Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses are capped. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s expenses. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the

27

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

With respect to the Met/Templeton Growth Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee and sub-advisory fee each contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board further considered that the Portfolio’s management fees were below the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

28

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Managed by Franklin Advisers, Inc.

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A and B shares of the Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio returned -0.06% and -0.33%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Citigroup World Government Bond Index (“WGBI”) ex-U.S.¹, returned 5.17%.

Market Environment/Conditions

Early in the year under review, emerging markets continued to lead the global recovery as several emerging economies returned to or exceeded their respective pre-crisis activity levels. Where recoveries were strong, monetary authorities tightened policy as output gaps closed and early indicators of inflationary pressure became more pronounced. In much of the developed world, however, economic growth was below trend and significant slack remained. Although some developed economies, such as those of Australia and the Scandinavian nations, enjoyed relatively strong recoveries, growth in the G-3 (U.S., Eurozone, and Japan) was slow by the standards of previous recoveries. Toward the latter half of the year, softer economic reports in most advanced and some emerging economies raised concerns that the global recovery might be faltering. Markets seemed to price in an end to the current recovery phase rather than a mid-business cycle slowdown. Against this economic backdrop, markets absorbed several shocks throughout the year. Populist uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya led to the fall of those countries’ long-time rulers and helped inspire a wave of regional unrest. An earthquake and subsequent tsunami struck serious blows to Japan’s economy and led to global supply chain disruptions. Global economic activity began to normalize as Japan started reconstruction and firms attempted to recover. These events contributed to significant short-term market volatility. Particularly, oil prices rose as investors became skittish due to fears about the potential effects of instability in the Middle East.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

As part of the Portfolio’s investment strategy, we used currency forward contracts to hedge or gain exposure to various currencies. Overall, our diversified currency exposure hurt relative performance. Currency exposures in Latin America hurt performance as the Mexican peso, Brazilian real, and Chilean peso depreciated against the U.S. dollar. Yen appreciation against the U.S. dollar also hurt performance, given our net negative exposure. In contrast, the euro declined versus the dollar over the year, and our net negative position added to relative performance, although this was partially offset by our positions in some other European currencies that depreciated. Our interest rate strategies and sovereign credit exposures contributed to absolute results. The decline of long-term bond yields in Asia (excluding Japan) and Latin America, and the correspondingly high returns generated by our holdings in these regions, contributed to performance.

At period end, the Portfolio had a shorter duration position than the benchmark given our assessment that there is limited scope for further global interest rate reductions from historically low levels and improving economic conditions. However, we maintained some duration exposure in countries where we believed long-term bond yields could benefit from declining risk premiums. We also built positions in currencies where we believed there were attractive medium-term growth prospects and rising short-term interest rate differentials. In particular, we favored Asian, Latin American, and non-Eurozone European currencies. Our net negative position in the yen reflected our negative relative view on the Japanese economy and served as an implicit hedge against potential rising yields in the U.S. given the yen’s historically strong correlation to long-term U.S. Treasury yields.

Michael Hasenstab, Ph.D., Portfolio Manager

Canyon Chan, CFA, Portfolio Manager

Franklin Advisers, Inc.

* This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Managed by Franklin Advisers, Inc.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Issuers

	% of Net Assets
Korea Treasury Bond		14.5
Mexican Bonos		7.1
Sweden Government Bond		6.1
Poland Government Bond		5.8
Indonesia Government		5.5
Norway Treasury Bill		3.7
Brazil Notas do Tesouro Nacional		3.5
United Kingdom Gilt		3.5
Queensland Treasury Corp.		3.4
New South Wales Treasury Corp.		3.0

Top Countries

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
South Korea		16.2
United States		10.7
Australia		10.1
Mexico		7.4
Indonesia		6.7
Sweden		6.4
Poland		6.1
Israel		4.6
Norway		3.8
Brazil		3.7

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio managed by

Franklin Advisers, Inc. vs. Citigroup World Government Bond Index (“WGBI”) ex-U.S.¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		Since Inception3
Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio—Class A		-0.06%		8.79%
Class B		-0.33%		8.54%
Citigroup World Government Bond Index (“WGBI”) ex-U.S.1		5.17%		7.66%

The performance of Class B shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other class of shares because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹The Citigroup World Government Bond Index (WGBI) ex-U.S. is market capitalization weighted and tracks total returns of government bonds in 20 countries globally, excluding the United States.

²“Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gains distributions.

³ Inception of Class A and Class B shares is 5/1/2009. Index returns are based on an inception date of 5/1/2009.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A
Actual		0.75%	$	1,000.00	$	942.80	$	3.67
Hypothetical*		0.75%		1,000.00		1,021.42		3.82
Class B
Actual		1.00%	$	1,000.00	$	941.80	$	4.89
Hypothetical*		1.00%		1,000.00		1,020.16		5.09

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—86.0% of Net Assets

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Argentina—0.6%
Argentina Bonos 0.439%, 08/03/12 (a)		44,400,000	$	5,516,700
Australia—9.8%
Australia Government Bond Series 123 5.750%, 04/15/12 (AUD)		16,770,000		17,275,536
New South Wales Treasury Corp. 5.500%, 03/01/17 (AUD)		12,800,000		13,923,347
Series 12 6.000%, 05/01/12 (AUD)		4,620,000		4,764,338
Series 813 5.500%, 08/01/13 (AUD)		11,010,000		11,568,394
Queensland Treasury Corp. 6.000%, 08/21/13 (AUD)		12,135,000		12,791,621
6.000%, 09/14/17 (AUD)		12,500,000		13,865,812
Series 13 6.000%, 08/14/13 (AUD)		6,880,000		7,292,683
Western Australia Treasury Corp. Series 12 5.500%, 07/17/12 (AUD)		4,725,000		4,879,835
Series 13 8.000%, 06/15/13 (AUD)		9,750,000		10,576,483
				96,938,049
Brazil—3.5%
Brazil Notas do Tesouro Nacional Series B 6.000%, 05/15/15 (BRL)		1,349,500		15,774,307
6.000%, 05/15/45 (BRL)		640,000		7,807,901
Series F 10.000%, 01/01/12 (BRL)		1,395,500		7,481,571
10.000%, 01/01/17 (BRL)		802,500		4,135,096
				35,198,875
Egypt—0.1%
Egypt Treasury Bill Series 371 9.448%, 01/17/12 (EGP)(b)		4,225,000		696,023
Germany—0.5%
Kreditanstalt fuer Wiederaufbau, Series EMTN 4.660%, 01/05/12 (NOK)		32,000,000		5,358,717
Hungary—2.8%
Hungary Government Bond Series 13/D 6.750%, 02/12/13 (HUF)		102,900,000	$	415,175
Series 13/E 7.500%, 10/24/13 (HUF)		77,600,000		312,739
Series 14/C 5.500%, 02/12/14 (HUF)		237,400,000		909,311
Series 14/D 6.750%, 08/22/14 (HUF)		680,800,000		2,645,415
Series 15/A 8.000%, 02/12/15 (HUF)		109,300,000		433,095
Series 16/C 5.500%, 02/12/16 (HUF)		168,700,000		604,210
Series 17/A 6.750%, 11/24/17 (HUF)		587,400,000		2,091,483
Series 17/B 6.750%, 02/24/17 (HUF)		153,300,000		562,390
Series 19/A 6.500%, 06/24/19 (HUF)		153,000,000		516,308
Series 20/A 7.500%, 11/12/20 (HUF)		11,000,000		38,990
Series 22/A 7.000%, 06/24/22 (HUF)		95,900,000		325,042
Hungary Government International Bond 3.875%, 02/24/20 (EUR)(c)		6,510,000		5,999,440
6.375%, 03/29/21 (c)		2,790,000		2,511,000
Hungary Treasury Bills Series 12M 5.438%, 08/22/12 (HUF)(b)		195,400,000		764,709
Republic of Hungary 5.750%, 06/11/18 (EUR)		4,650,000		5,054,000
6.250%, 01/29/20 (c)		5,305,000		4,801,025
				27,984,332
Indonesia—6.4%
Indonesia Government 12.800%, 06/15/21 (IDR)		93,010,000,000		15,114,887
10.000%, 09/15/24 (IDR)		186,070,000,000		26,508,988
10.000%, 02/15/28 (IDR)		92,960,000,000		13,166,253
Indonesia Retail Bond Series ORI7 7.950%, 08/15/13 (IDR)		40,500,000,000		4,684,006
Indonesia Treasury Bond Series FR33 12.500%, 03/15/13 (IDR)		37,300,000,000		4,488,583
				63,962,717

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Iraq—0.4%
Republic of Iraq 5.800%, 01/15/28 (c)		4,200,000	$	3,465,000
Ireland—1.9%
Ireland Government Bond 4.000%, 01/15/14 (EUR)		3,176,000		3,815,751
4.600%, 04/18/16 (EUR)(c)		1,193,000		1,375,139
4.500%, 10/18/18 (EUR)		1,042,000		1,068,437
4.400%, 06/18/19 (EUR)		1,459,000		1,491,625
5.900%, 10/18/19 (EUR)		3,005,000		3,332,734
4.500%, 04/18/20 (EUR)		1,683,000		1,671,406
5.000%, 10/18/20 (EUR)		2,740,000		2,877,935
5.400%, 03/13/25 (EUR)		2,747,000		2,805,256
				18,438,283
Israel—4.4%
Israel Government Bond Series 0312 4.000%, 03/30/12 (ILS)		34,110,000		9,238,637
Series 0313 5.000%, 03/31/13 (ILS)		19,740,000		5,514,709
Series 0913 3.500%, 09/30/13 (ILS)		26,682,000		7,147,046
Israel Treasury Bill - Makam Series 0112 2.261%, 01/04/12 (ILS) (b)		5,695,000		1,492,175
Series 0212 2.961%, 02/01/12 (ILS) (b)		8,355,000		2,184,974
Series 0252 3.126%, 02/29/12 (ILS) (b)		3,255,000		849,531
Series 0412 3.110%, 04/04/12 (ILS) (b)		43,360,000		11,291,637
Series 0512 3.160%, 05/02/12 (ILS) (b)		22,840,000		5,935,329
				43,654,038
Lithuania—1.6%
Republic of Lithuania 6.750%, 01/15/15 (144A)		7,480,000		7,816,600
7.375%, 02/11/20 (144A)		6,420,000		6,965,700
6.125%, 03/09/21 (144A) (c)		930,000		930,000
				15,712,300
Malaysia—3.0%
Bank Negara Monetary Notes Series 0911 2.613%, 02/21/12 (MYR) (b)		6,590,000		2,070,925
Malaysia—(Continued)
Series 3511 2.661%, 01/03/12 (MYR) (b)		2,000,000	$	630,915
Series 4011 2.663%, 03/08/12 (MYR) (b)		7,400,000		2,322,192
Series 4211 2.724%, 01/19/12 (MYR) (b)		150,000		47,263
Series 4711 2.619%, 04/05/12 (MYR) (b)		5,890,000		1,844,213
Series 4811 2.612%, 02/16/12 (MYR) (b)		4,790,000		1,505,896
Series 6111 2.816%, 04/19/12 (MYR) (b)		3,500,000		1,094,615
Series 6211 2.696%, 06/14/12 (MYR) (b)		400,000		124,533
Series 6811 2.723%, 05/17/12 (MYR) (b)		1,010,000		315,145
Malaysia Government Bond Series 0108 3.461%, 07/31/13 (MYR)		810,000		257,602
Series 0109 2.509%, 08/27/12 (MYR)		9,950,000		3,130,311
Series 0309 2.711%, 02/14/12 (MYR)		12,690,000		4,001,894
Series 0507 3.700%, 05/15/13 (MYR)		220,000		70,122
Series 0509 3.210%, 05/31/13 (MYR)		680,000		215,361
Series 3/03 3.702%, 02/25/13 (MYR)		7,614,000		2,423,217
Series 5/06 3.718%, 06/15/12 (MYR)		29,290,000		9,271,052
Malaysia Treasury Bill Series 182 2.621%, 01/20/12 (MYR) (b)		550,000		173,285
2.705%, 04/13/12 (MYR) (b)		240,000		75,096
Series 364 2.617%, 07/27/12 (MYR) (b)		1,000,000		310,235
				29,883,872
Mexico—7.1%
Mexican Bonos 7.750%, 12/14/17 (MXN)		195,000,000		15,313,205
Series M 9.000%, 06/20/13 (MXN)		170,280,000		12,918,639
Series MI 10 8.000%, 12/19/13 (MXN)		563,874,000		42,723,038
				70,954,882

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Multi-National—0.8%
Corp. Andina De Fomento 8.125%, 06/04/19		1,970,000	$	2,429,607
European Investment Bank, Series EMTN 5.375%, 07/16/12 (NOK)		32,000,000		5,428,399
				7,858,006
Norway—3.7%
Norway Treasury Bill 2.469%, 03/21/12 (NOK) (b)		218,030,000		36,400,400
Peru—0.2%
Peru Government Bond 7.840%, 08/12/20 (PEN)		5,663,000		2,394,568
Poland—5.8%
Poland Government Bond 5.750%, 04/25/14 (PLN)		13,000,000		3,842,777
6.250%, 10/24/15 (PLN)		45,000,000		13,562,350
Series 0112 4.234%, 01/25/12 (PLN) (b)		4,980,000		1,442,336
Series 0113 4.582%, 01/25/13 (PLN) (b)		57,205,000		15,839,628
Series 0412 4.750%, 04/25/12 (PLN)		22,955,000		6,670,687
Series 0413 5.250%, 04/25/13 (PLN)		7,225,000		2,112,475
Series 0712 4.438%, 07/25/12 (PLN) (b)		3,880,000		1,099,189
Series 0713 4.340%, 07/25/13 (PLN) (b)		20,620,000		5,569,154
Series 1012 4.437%, 10/25/12 (PLN) (b)		21,755,000		6,092,082
Series 1013 5.000%, 10/24/13 (PLN)		6,080,000		1,771,642
				58,002,320
Qatar—0.5%
Qatar Government International Bond 6.550%, 04/09/19 (144A)		4,450,000		5,273,250
Russia—2.5%
Russian Foreign Bond - Eurobond 7.500%, 03/31/30 (144A)		21,042,000		24,487,628
South Africa—1.5%
South Africa Government International Bond 5.250%, 05/16/13 (EUR)		1,800,000		2,401,182
South Africa—(Continued)
4.500%, 04/05/16 (EUR)		2,000,000	$	2,665,643
6.875%, 05/27/19		7,970,000		9,643,700
				14,710,525
South Korea—15.6%
Export-Import Bank of Korea 8.125%, 01/21/14		2,200,000		2,442,418
Korea Development Bank 8.000%, 01/23/14		2,200,000		2,421,751
Korea Treasury Bond Series 1206 4.000%, 06/10/12 (KRW)		49,990,000,000		43,510,567
Series 1212 4.250%, 12/10/12 (KRW)		4,446,000,000		3,889,208
Series 1303 5.250%, 03/10/13 (KRW)		1,423,000,000		1,261,477
Series 1306 3.750%, 06/10/13 (KRW)		32,159,600,000		28,054,673
Series 1312 3.000%, 12/10/13 (KRW)		78,521,800,000		67,741,411
Republic of Korea 7.125%, 04/16/19		4,200,000		5,261,584
				154,583,089
Sri Lanka—1.4%
Sri Lanka Government Bond Series A 6.900%, 08/01/12 (LKR)		12,400,000		107,684
7.000%, 03/01/14 (LKR)		900,000		7,486
11.750%, 03/15/15 (LKR)		11,590,000		106,708
6.500%, 07/15/15 (LKR)		68,400,000		542,505
11.000%, 08/01/15 (LKR)		522,600,000		4,746,864
6.400%, 08/01/16 (LKR)		56,200,000		431,001
Series B 6.600%, 06/01/14 (LKR)		13,600,000		111,481
11.000%, 09/01/15 (LKR)		762,125,000		6,920,978
6.400%, 10/01/16 (LKR)		35,400,000		270,342
Sri Lanka Treasury Bill Series 364 6.760%, 01/27/12 (LKR) (b)		8,200,000		71,513
6.728%, 02/03/12 (LKR) (b)		15,070,000		131,216
6.758%, 02/10/12 (LKR) (b)		56,610,000		492,116
6.755%, 02/17/12 (LKR) (b)		13,820,000		119,946
6.831%, 07/06/12 (LKR) (b)		900,000		7,576
6.722%, 09/14/12 (LKR) (b)		15,400,000		127,201
6.767%, 09/28/12 (LKR) (b)		4,200,000		34,568
				14,229,185

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Sweden—6.2%
Kommuninvest I Sverige Series 1210 1.750%, 10/08/12 (SEK)		6,060,000	$	880,693
Sweden Government Bond Series 1046 5.500%, 10/08/12 (SEK)		291,780,000		43,858,345
Series 1055 1.500%, 08/30/13 (SEK)		116,280,000		16,927,042
				61,666,080
Ukraine—0.7%
Financing of Infrastructural Projects State Enterprise 7.400%, 04/20/18 (144A)		400,000		315,000
Ukraine Government International Bond 7.650%, 06/11/13 (144A)		320,000		308,800
4.950%, 10/13/15 (144A) (EUR)		150,000		159,549
6.250%, 06/17/16 (144A)		400,000		353,000
7.750%, 09/23/20 (144A)		200,000		174,000
7.950%, 02/23/21 (144A)		6,530,000		5,762,725
				7,073,074
United Arab Emirates—0.6%
Emirate of Abu Dhabi 6.750%, 04/08/19 (144A) (c)		4,600,000		5,646,500
United Kingdom—3.5%
United Kingdom Gilt 5.000%, 03/07/12 (GBP)		12,139,000		19,012,958
5.250%, 06/07/12 (GBP)		10,134,000		16,076,498
				35,089,456
Venezuela—0.4%
Venezuela Government International Bond 10.750%, 09/19/13 (c)		3,985,000		4,044,775
Vietnam—0.5%
Socialist Republic of Vietnam 6.750%, 01/29/20 (144A) (c)		5,080,000		5,143,500
Total Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities (Cost $849,585,643)				854,366,144
Municipals—1.0%
California State General Obligation Unlimited, Build America Bonds 6.650%, 03/01/22		815,000		944,707
Municipals—(Continued)
7.550%, 04/01/39		325,000	$	397,709
7.625%, 03/01/40		3,245,000		3,995,731
City of Detroit, MI General Obligation Limited, District State Aid 4.500%, 11/01/23		280,000		302,630
Illinois State General Obligation Unlimited, Taxable 4.421%, 01/01/15		2,920,000		3,030,989
Tulare, CA Sewer Revenue Bonds Build America, FSA 8.750%, 11/15/44		1,585,000		1,769,573
Total Municipals (Cost $9,244,306)				10,441,339
Short-Term Investments—10.4%
Discount Notes—0.3%
Federal Home Loan Bank 0.001%, 01/03/12 (b)		3,055,000		3,055,000
Mutual Funds—1.2%
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (d)		11,778,860		11,778,860
Repurchase Agreement—8.9%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $88,604,098 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $49,000,000 Federal Home Loan Bank at 0.300% due 12/10/12 with a value of $49,000,000; by $40,480,000 Federal National Mortgage Association at 0.500% due 10/30/12 with a value of $40,581,200; by $785,000 U.S. Treasury Notes at 1.375% due 01/15/13 with a value of $799,719		88,604,000		88,604,000
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $103,437,860)				103,437,860
Total Investments—97.4% (Cost $962,267,809#)				968,245,343
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—2.6%				25,353,578
Net Assets—100.0%			$	993,598,921

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

† Par amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $970,557,210. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $54,127,936 and $(56,439,803), respectively, resulting in net unrealized depreciation of $(2,311,867) for federal income tax purposes.

(a) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2011. Maturity date shown for callable securities reflects the earliest possible call date.

(b) Zero coupon bond—Interest rate represents current yield to maturity.

(c) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities loaned was $11,428,994 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $11,778,860. The cash collateral is invested in a money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian.

(d) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities lending transactions.

(144A)— Securities exempt from registration under Rule 144A of the Securities Act of 1933. These securities may be resold in transactions exempt from registration, normally to qualified institutional buyers. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of 144A securities was $63,336,252, which is 6.4% of net assets.

(AUD)— Australian Dollar

(BRL)— Brazilian Real

(EGP)— Egyptian Pound

(EUR)— Euro

(FSA)— Financial Security Assurance, Inc.

(GBP)— British Pound

(HUF)— Hungarian Forint

(IDR)— Indonesian Rupiah

(ILS)— Israeli Shekel

(KRW)— South Korean Won

(LKR)— Sri Lanka Rupee

(MXN)— Mexican Peso

(MYR)— Malaysian Ringgit

(NOK)— Norwegian Krone

(PEN)— Peruvian Nuevo Sol

(PLN)— Polish Zloty

(SEK)— Swedish Krona

Top Industries as of December 31, 2011 (Unaudited)
	% of Net Assets
Global Government High Yield		43.2	%
Global Government Investment Grade		39.7	%
Foreign Corporate Investment Grade		4.1	%

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2			Level 3		Total
Total Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities*	$	—	$	854,366,144		$	—	$	854,366,144
Municipals		—		10,441,339			—		10,441,339
Short-Term Investments
Discount Notes		—		3,055,000			—		3,055,000
Mutual Funds		11,778,860		—			—		11,778,860
Repurchase Agreement		—		88,604,000			—		88,604,000
Total Short-Term Investments		11,778,860		91,659,000			—		103,437,860
Total Investments	$	11,778,860	$	956,466,483		$	—	$	968,245,343
Forwards**
Forward Foreign Currency Contracts (Unrealized Appreciation)	$	—	$	24,363,239		$	—	$	24,363,239
Forward Foreign Currency Contracts (Unrealized Depreciation)		—		(23,379,926	)		—		(23,379,926	)
Total Forward Contracts	$	—	$	983,313		$	—	$	983,313

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

** Derivative instruments such as forwards are valued on the unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the instrument.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)(b)	$	879,641,343
Repurchase Agreement		88,604,000
Cash		684
Cash denominated in foreign currencies (c)		19,190,983
Collateral for forward currency exchange contracts		5,390,000
Receivable for investments sold		1,950,998
Receivable for shares sold		376,400
Dividends receivable		2,074
Interest receivable		9,993,816
Unrealized appreciation on forward currency exchange contracts		24,363,239
Total assets		1,029,513,537
Liabilities
Payables for:
Shares redeemed		73,264
Unrealized depreciation on forward currency exchange contracts		23,379,926
Collateral for securities loaned		11,778,860
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		504,644
Distribution and service fees - Class B		14,258
Administration fees		4,308
Custodian and accounting fees		101,725
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		32,564
Total liabilities		35,914,616
Net Assets	$	993,598,921
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	923,658,958
Accumulated net realized loss		(30,033,103	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		6,359,455
Undistributed net investment income		93,613,611
Net Assets	$	993,598,921
Net Assets
Class A	$	926,294,031
Class B		67,304,890
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		80,246,947
Class B		5,862,515
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	11.54
Class B		11.48

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreement, was $873,663,809.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $11,428,994.

(c) Identified cost of cash denominated in foreign currencies was $19,480,598.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Interest (a)(b)	$	45,290,204
Total investment income		45,290,204
Expenses
Management fees		5,632,227
Administration fees		48,608
Custodian and accounting fees		1,071,611
Distribution and service fees—Class B		152,917
Audit and tax services		54,041
Legal		33,758
Trustees’ fees and expenses		36,224
Shareholder reporting		28,030
Insurance		6,062
Miscellaneous		12,322
Total expenses		7,075,800
Net investment income		38,214,404
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments and Foreign Currency Transactions
Net realized gain on:
Investments		6,898,240
Foreign currency transactions		36,671,801
Net realized gain on investments and foreign currency transactions		43,570,041
Net change in unrealized depreciation from:
Investments		(75,154,780	)
Foreign currency transactions		(16,577,023	)
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		(91,731,803	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments and foreign currency transactions		(48,161,762	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(9,947,358	)

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $1,913,311.

(b) Includes net income on securities loaned of $19,292.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	38,214,404		$	29,710,481
Net realized gain on investments and foreign currency transactions		43,570,041			1,968,920
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments and foreign currency transactions		(91,731,803	)		61,582,365
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations		(9,947,358	)		93,261,766
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(57,280,722	)		(5,154,619	)
Class B		(4,183,692	)		(126,328	)
From net realized capital gains
Class A		(1,033,286	)		(242,709	)
Class B		(76,546	)		(6,186	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(62,574,246	)		(5,529,842	)
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		272,517,210			51,134,899
Net Increase in Net Assets		199,995,606			138,866,823
Net assets at beginning of period		793,603,315			654,736,492
Net assets at end of period	$	993,598,921		$	793,603,315
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	93,613,611		$	56,087,262

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		22,655,253		$	275,724,425			8,666,240		$	102,423,969
Reinvestments		4,799,507			58,314,007			453,557			5,397,328
Redemptions		(7,215,219	)		(87,654,514	)		(7,653,035	)		(90,754,559	)
Net increase		20,239,541		$	246,383,918			1,466,762		$	17,066,738
Class B
Sales		2,977,944		$	36,224,622			3,272,066		$	38,940,878
Reinvestments		352,086			4,260,239			11,154			132,514
Redemptions		(1,200,512	)		(14,351,569	)		(429,661	)		(5,005,231	)
Net increase		2,129,518		$	26,133,292			2,853,559		$	34,068,161
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	272,517,210					$	51,134,899

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	12.45		$	11.02		$	10.00
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.50			0.49			0.34
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.47	)		1.03			0.68
Total from investment operations		0.03			1.52			1.02
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.92	)		(0.09	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.02	)		0.00	++		0.00
Total distributions		(0.94	)		(0.09	)		0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	11.54		$	12.45		$	11.02
Total Return (%)		(0.06	)		13.73			10.20
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.74			0.73			0.73	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)		0.74			0.73			0.73	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		4.09			4.18			4.87	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		46.4			17.5			14.8
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	926.3		$	747.3		$	645.1
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	12.41		$	11.00		$	10.00
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.46			0.46			0.41
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.46	)		1.03			0.59
Total from investment operations		0.00			1.49			1.00
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.91	)		(0.08	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.02	)		(0.00	)++		0.00
Total distributions		(0.93	)		(0.08	)		0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	11.48		$	12.41		$	11.00
Total Return (%)		(0.33	)		13.54			10.00
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.99			0.98			0.98	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)		0.99			0.98			0.98	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		3.81			3.86			5.71	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		46.4			17.5			14.8
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	67.3		$	46.3		$	9.7

* Annualized.

++ Distributions from net realized capital gains were less than $0.01.

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Commencement of operations was 5/1/2009.

(c) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is non-diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A and B Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to foreign currency transactions, certain foreign withholding taxes, deferred trustees’ compensation, forward transactions and premium amortization adjustments, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Foreign Currency Translation - The books and records of the Portfolio are maintained in U.S. dollars. The values of securities, currencies and other assets and liabilities denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars are translated into U.S. dollars based upon foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period. Purchases and sales of investment securities, income and expenses are translated on the respective dates of such transactions. Since the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, it is not practical to isolate that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates from that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities. Such fluctuations are included in the net realized and unrealized gain or loss on investments.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Net realized foreign exchange gains or losses arise from activity in forward foreign currency exchange contracts, sales of foreign currency, currency gains or losses realized between the trade and settlement dates on securities transactions, and the difference between the amounts of dividends, interest, and foreign withholding taxes recorded by the Portfolio and the U.S. dollar equivalent of the amounts actually received or paid by the Portfolio. Gains and losses attributable to foreign currency exchange rates on sales of securities are recorded as Net realized gains and losses on investments. Net unrealized foreign exchange gains and losses arise from changes in the value of assets and liabilities, other than investment securities, resulting from changes in foreign exchange rates.

Securities Lending - The Portfolio may lend its portfolio securities to certain qualified brokers who borrow securities in order to complete certain securities transactions. By lending its portfolio securities, the Portfolio attempts to increase its net investment income through the receipt of income on the loaned securities. Any gain or loss in the market price of the loaned securities that might occur and any interest earned or dividends declared during the term of the loan would accrue to the account of the Portfolio.

The Trust has entered into a securities lending arrangement with the custodian, State Street Bank and Trust Company (the “custodian”). Under this arrangement, the custodian is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral at least equal to 102% of the market value of the loaned securities (105% for foreign equity securities), at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities must be maintained for the duration of the loan. Cash collateral is generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The Navigator Portfolio is a registered money market fund which invests in a variety of high quality U.S. dollar-denominated instruments. If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower shall be required to deliver, by the close of business on the following business day, an additional amount of collateral so that the total amount of posted collateral equals at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of net income (income after the deduction of expenses and fees of the Navigator Portfolio) on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the custodian and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by U.S. Treasuries, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the custodian. The risks associated with lending portfolio securities include, but are not limited to, possible delays in receiving additional collateral or in the recovery of the loaned securities, possible loss of rights in the collateral should the borrower fail financially, as well as risk of loss in the value of the collateral or the value of the investments made with the collateral. Net interest income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2011 is disclosed in the footnotes to the Statement of Operations. Any outstanding loans by the Portfolio at December 31, 2011 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

Forward Commitments and When-Issued and Delayed-Delivery Securities - The Portfolio may purchase securities on a when-issued or delayed delivery basis and may purchase or sell securities on a forward commitment basis. Settlement of such transactions normally occurs within a month or more after the purchase or sale commitment is made. The Portfolio may purchase securities under such conditions only with the intention of actually acquiring them, but may enter into a separate agreement to sell the securities before the settlement date. Since the value of securities purchased may fluctuate prior to settlement, the Portfolio may be required to pay more at settlement than the security is worth. In addition, the purchaser is not entitled to any of the interest earned prior to settlement. Upon making a commitment to purchase a security on a when-issued, delayed delivery or forward commitment basis, the Portfolio will hold liquid assets in a segregated account at the Portfolio’s custodian bank worth at least the equivalent of the amount due. The liquid assets will be monitored on a daily basis and adjusted as necessary to maintain the necessary value.

Mortgage Related and Other Asset Backed Securities - The Portfolio may invest in mortgage related or other asset-backed securities. These securities may include mortgage pass-through securities, collateralized mortgaged obligations (“CMOs”), commercial mortgage-backed securities, mortgage dollar rolls, CMO residuals, stripped mortgage backed securities (“SMBS”) and other securities that directly or indirectly

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

represent a participation in, or are secured by or payable from, mortgage loans on real property or other receivables. The value of some mortgage or asset-backed securities may be particularly sensitive to changes in prevailing interest rates. Early repayment of principal on some mortgage-related securities may expose the Portfolio to a lower rate of return upon reinvestment of principal. The value of these securities may fluctuate in response to the market’s perception of the creditworthiness of the issuers. Additionally, although mortgages and mortgage-related securities are generally supported by some form of government or private guarantee and/or insurance, there is no assurance that private guarantors or insurers will meet their obligations.

In one type of SMBS, one class receives all of the interest from the mortgage assets (the interest-only or “IO” class), while the other class will receive all of the principal (the principal-only or “PO” class). Payments received for the IOs are included in interest income on the Statement of Operations of the Portfolio. Because principal will not be received at the maturity of an IO, adjustments are made to the book value of the security until maturity. These adjustments are included in interest income on the Statement of Operations of the Portfolio. Payments received for POs are treated as reductions to the cost and par value of the securities. Details of mortgage related and other asset-backed securities held by the Portfolio are included in the Portfolio’s Schedule of Investments.

The Portfolio may invest a significant portion of its assets in securities of issuers that hold mortgage and asset-backed securities and direct investments in securities backed by commercial and residential mortgage loans and other financial assets. The value and related income of these securities are sensitive to changes in economic conditions, including delinquencies and/or defaults, and may be negatively impacted by increased volatility of market prices and periods of illiquidity.

High Yield Debt Securities - The Portfolio may invest in high yield debt securities, or “junk bonds,” which are securities that are rated below “investment grade” or, if not rated, are of equivalent quality. A portfolio with high yield debt securities generally will be exposed to greater market risk and credit risk than a portfolio that invests only in investment grade debt securities because issuers of high yield debt securities are less secure financially, are more likely to default on their obligations, and their securities are more sensitive to interest rate changes and downturns in the economy. In addition, the secondary market for lower-rated debt securities may not be as liquid as that for more highly rated debt securities. As a result, the Portfolio’s Subadviser may find it more difficult to value lower-rated debt securities or sell them and may have to sell them at prices significantly lower than the values assigned to them by the Portfolio.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with Franklin Advisers, Inc. (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$5,632,227		0.60	%	ALL

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Distribution Agreement and Plan - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A and Class B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B distribution plan provides that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B Shares. However, under the Class B distribution agreement, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

distribution plan are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B distribution plan and distribution agreement, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases				Sales
Foreign Government		Non Government		Foreign Government		Non Government
$	620,448,159	$	603,105	$	383,238,059	$	10,340,517

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - The Portfolio may enter into forward foreign currency exchange contracts to obtain investment exposure, enhance return or hedge or protect its portfolio holdings against the risk of future movements in certain foreign currency exchange rates. The Portfolio may also enter into these contracts for other portfolio management purposes. When entering into these contracts, the Portfolio agrees to receive or deliver a fixed quantity of foreign currency for an agreed-upon price on an agreed upon future date. These contracts are valued daily and the Portfolio’s net equity therein, representing unrealized gain or loss on the contracts as measured by the difference between the forward foreign exchange rates at the dates of entry into the contracts and the forward foreign exchange rates at the value date, is included in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. When a contract is closed, the Portfolio recognizes a realized gain or loss equal to the difference between the value of the contract at the time it was opened and the value at the time it was closed.

Realized and unrealized gains and losses on forward foreign currency exchange contracts are included in the Statement of Operations. These contracts involve market and/or credit risk in excess of the amount recognized in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

The use of forward foreign currency exchange contracts does not eliminate fluctuations in the underlying prices of the securities of the Portfolio, but it does establish a rate of exchange that can be achieved in the future. Although forward foreign currency exchange contracts may limit the risk of loss due to a decline in the value of the currency holdings, they also limit any potential gain that might result should the value of the currency increase. In addition, the Portfolio could be exposed to risks if the counterparties to the contracts are unable to meet the terms of the contracts. The Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit risk, as opposed to investment and other types of risk, in respect of foreign currency forward contracts is typically the value of the currency the Portfolio is due from its counterparty at settlement plus the value of the currency paid, if any, to the Portfolio’s counterparty.

At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had the following derivatives, categorized by risk exposure:

	Asset Derivatives			Liability Derivatives
Risk Exposure	Statement of Assets and Liabilities Location	Fair Value		Statement of Assets and Liabilities Location	Fair Value
Currency	Unrealized appreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts	$	24,363,237	Unrealized depreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts	$	23,379,924

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments - continued

Transactions in derivative instruments during the year ended December 31, 2011, were as follows:

Statement of Operations Location - Net Realized Gain (Loss)	Currency
Foreign currency transactions	$	10,248,351

Statement of Operations Location - Net Change in Unrealized Gain (Loss)	Currency
Foreign currency transactions	$	(15,724,552	)

For the year ended December 31, 2011, the average amount or number per contract outstanding for each derivative type was as follows:

Derivative Description	Average Notional or Face Amount (a)
Foreign currency transactions	$	844,175,469

(a) Averages are based on activity levels during 2011.

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts to Buy:

Settlement Date		Counterparty	Contracts to Buy			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Net Unrealized (Depreciation)
	2/8/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		4,007,013	AUD	$	4,090,910		3,896,219	$	194,691
	2/8/2012	UBS AG		4,005,906	AUD		4,089,781		3,884,728		205,053
	1/4/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		11,600,000	BRL		6,219,006		6,451,613		(232,607	)
	1/13/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		864,300,000	CLP		1,661,444		1,703,222		(41,778	)
	2/10/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		438,900,000	CLP		840,485		891,711		(51,226	)
	2/13/2012	Barclays Bank plc		438,100,000	CLP		838,678		889,002		(50,324	)
	2/14/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		433,400,000	CLP		829,589		883,768		(54,179	)
	2/14/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		753,400,000	CLP		1,442,115		1,549,727		(107,612	)
	2/16/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		681,880,000	CLP		1,304,930		1,416,452		(111,522	)
	2/16/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		682,020,000	CLP		1,305,198		1,416,154		(110,956	)
	2/21/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		360,850,000	CLP		690,190		746,175		(55,985	)
	2/21/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		405,100,000	CLP		774,826		831,614		(56,788	)
	2/22/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		687,600,000	CLP		1,315,014		1,427,296		(112,282	)
	2/23/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		245,250,000	CLP		468,982		506,673		(37,691	)
	2/27/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		303,150,000	CLP		579,448		626,291		(46,843	)
	2/27/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		865,080,000	CLP		1,653,535		1,783,027		(129,492	)
	2/28/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		246,100,000	CLP		470,350		506,900		(36,550	)
	2/28/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		313,500,000	CLP		599,166		639,665		(40,499	)
	2/29/2012	Barclays Bank plc		769,600,000	CLP		1,470,711		1,567,733		(97,022	)
	2/29/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		303,150,000	CLP		579,322		626,291		(46,969	)
	3/1/2012	Barclays Bank plc		385,400,000	CLP		736,422		783,971		(47,549	)
	3/1/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		39,050,000	CLP		74,617		79,515		(4,898	)

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - continued

Settlement Date		Counterparty	Contracts to Buy			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Net Unrealized (Depreciation)
	3/2/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		39,050,000	CLP	$	74,609		79,515	$	(4,906	)
	3/12/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		113,400,000	CLP		216,429		230,582		(14,153	)
	3/21/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		408,600,000	CLP		779,086		820,070		(40,984	)
	5/4/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		1,182,768,000	CLP		2,246,214		2,460,000		(213,786	)
	5/9/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		8,066,295,000	CLP		15,312,433		16,573,444		(1,261,011	)
	5/9/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		8,126,730,000	CLP		15,427,158		16,825,528		(1,398,370	)
	5/9/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		1,186,950,000	CLP		2,253,214		2,460,000		(206,786	)
	5/11/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		440,900,000	CLP		836,831		908,080		(71,249	)
	1/24/2012	Barclays Bank plc		343,858	GBP		534,107		544,819		(10,712	)
	1/24/2012	Citibank N.A.		228,975	GBP		355,662		361,842		(6,180	)
	1/24/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		342,887	GBP		532,599		542,763		(10,164	)
	1/26/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		179,999	GBP		279,583		286,405		(6,822	)
	1/27/2012	Barclays Bank plc		228,120	GBP		354,324		358,793		(4,469	)
	1/27/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		45,301	GBP		70,363		72,074		(1,711	)
	1/27/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		135,950	GBP		211,162		214,017		(2,855	)
	1/30/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		89,988	GBP		139,769		141,629		(1,860	)
	1/31/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		44,245	GBP		68,721		70,044		(1,323	)
	2/1/2012	Barclays Bank plc		18,383	GBP		28,552		28,984		(432	)
	2/1/2012	Citibank N.A.		148,153	GBP		230,107		234,344		(4,237	)
	2/1/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		170,575	GBP		264,932		268,880		(3,948	)
	2/14/2012	Barclays Bank plc		995,417	GBP		1,545,860		1,586,078		(40,218	)
	3/29/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		1,088,279	GBP		1,689,312		1,733,694		(44,382	)
	3/29/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		1,088,136	GBP		1,689,090		1,733,694		(44,604	)
	3/30/2012	Barclays Bank plc		2,182,889	GBP		3,388,415		3,467,388		(78,973	)
	4/2/2012	Credit Suisse London		1,309,025	GBP		2,031,885		2,080,433		(48,548	)
	9/28/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		308,000,000	HUF		1,235,174		1,415,441		(180,267	)
	9/28/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		314,100,000	HUF		1,259,637		1,421,589		(161,952	)
	3/30/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		1,525,657	ILS		399,363		426,209		(26,846	)
	3/30/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		926,692	ILS		242,575		258,889		(16,314	)
	5/10/2012	HSBC Bank plc		1,228,565,000	INR		22,623,469		25,821,038		(3,197,569	)
	7/19/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		7,329,000	INR		133,600		157,715		(24,115	)
	7/19/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		7,329,000	INR		133,600		157,715		(24,115	)
	8/24/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		49,984,000	INR		907,310		1,057,901		(150,591	)
	8/24/2012	HSBC Bank plc		57,675,000	INR		1,046,917		1,221,972		(175,055	)
	9/6/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		35,346,000	INR		640,625		744,769		(104,144	)
	10/29/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		78,899,000	INR		1,422,308		1,527,437		(105,129	)
	10/29/2012	HSBC Bank plc		80,751,000	INR		1,455,694		1,565,716		(110,022	)
	10/31/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		166,621,000	INR		3,003,158		3,239,146		(235,988	)
	10/31/2012	HSBC Bank plc		120,290,000	INR		2,168,093		2,337,998		(169,905	)

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - continued

Settlement Date		Counterparty	Contracts to Buy			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Net Unrealized (Depreciation)
	6/27/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		1,159,000,000	KRW	$	997,191		987,938	$	9,253
	6/27/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		1,162,000,000	KRW		999,772		999,054		718
	9/26/2012	HSBC Bank plc		2,328,000,000	KRW		2,000,369		1,971,278		29,091
	5/11/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		50,424,120	MYR		15,826,577		16,660,869		(834,292	)
	6/6/2012	HSBC Bank plc		99,141,840	MYR		31,103,911		32,345,385		(1,241,474	)
	8/27/2012	HSBC Bank plc		10,421,193	MYR		3,263,386		3,484,649		(221,263	)
	8/27/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		7,165,900	MYR		2,243,994		2,396,061		(152,067	)
	10/12/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		58,458,531	MYR		18,286,304		18,211,380		74,924
	1/13/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		141,109,000	PHP		3,216,426		3,205,202		11,224
	1/17/2012	HSBC Bank plc		22,640,000	PHP		515,969		514,744		1,225
	1/18/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		25,275,000	PHP		575,997		567,276		8,721
	1/18/2012	HSBC Bank plc		44,316,000	PHP		1,009,926		994,859		15,067
	1/19/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		15,814,000	PHP		360,373		356,091		4,282
	1/19/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		63,113,000	PHP		1,438,235		1,402,979		35,256
	1/26/2012	HSBC Bank plc		58,332,000	PHP		1,328,899		1,295,403		33,496
	1/31/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		49,803,000	PHP		1,134,359		1,155,227		(20,868	)
	2/3/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		59,600,000	PHP		1,357,336		1,341,104		16,232
	2/3/2012	HSBC Bank plc		21,300,000	PHP		485,088		478,856		6,232
	2/3/2012	HSBC Bank plc		16,800,000	PHP		382,605		377,859		4,746
	2/6/2012	HSBC Bank plc		16,800,000	PHP		382,557		379,661		2,896
	2/6/2012	HSBC Bank plc		15,700,000	PHP		357,509		354,802		2,707
	2/7/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		23,000,000	PHP		523,709		518,018		5,691
	5/4/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		210,512,040	PHP		4,769,451		4,920,000		(150,549	)
	5/7/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		211,958,520	PHP		4,801,368		4,920,000		(118,632	)
	9/24/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		62,498,000	PHP		1,408,568		1,404,607		3,961
	9/28/2012	HSBC Bank plc		22,900,000	PHP		516,076		523,860		(7,784	)
	10/3/2012	HSBC Bank plc		18,300,000	PHP		412,370		416,904		(4,534	)
	10/4/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		75,232,000	PHP		1,695,235		1,727,486		(32,251	)
	10/4/2012	HSBC Bank plc		60,346,000	PHP		1,359,803		1,368,980		(9,177	)
	10/5/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		89,947,000	PHP		2,026,789		2,065,373		(38,584	)
	10/5/2012	HSBC Bank plc		89,969,000	PHP		2,027,285		2,028,110		(825	)
	10/9/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		73,838,000	PHP		1,663,719		1,696,450		(32,731	)
	10/9/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		23,762,000	PHP		535,406		544,750		(9,344	)
	10/11/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		59,085,000	PHP		1,331,270		1,357,340		(26,070	)
	10/11/2012	HSBC Bank plc		59,197,000	PHP		1,333,794		1,361,132		(27,338	)
	10/11/2012	HSBC Bank plc		29,555,000	PHP		665,917		679,566		(13,649	)
	10/11/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		29,478,000	PHP		664,182		675,791		(11,609	)
	10/12/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		17,593,000	PHP		396,391		403,047		(6,656	)
	10/12/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		41,339,000	PHP		931,416		955,815		(24,399	)

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - continued

Settlement Date		Counterparty	Contracts to Buy			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Net Unrealized (Depreciation)
	10/15/2012	HSBC Bank plc		29,334,000	PHP	$	660,904		672,259	$	(11,355	)
	10/15/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		48,518,000	PHP		1,093,125		1,110,506		(17,381	)
	10/15/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		24,453,000	PHP		550,934		563,303		(12,369	)
	10/19/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		16,007,000	PHP		360,624		366,545		(5,921	)
	10/19/2012	HSBC Bank plc		58,332,000	PHP		1,314,172		1,352,752		(38,580	)
	10/22/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		63,989,000	PHP		1,441,565		1,465,621		(24,056	)
	10/22/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		32,130,000	PHP		723,835		739,811		(15,976	)
	10/29/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		31,270,000	PHP		704,398		726,517		(22,119	)
	10/29/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		6,810,000	PHP		153,404		157,639		(4,235	)
	11/14/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		18,200,000	PHP		409,897		420,907		(11,010	)
	2/7/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		2,353,000	SGD		1,816,945		1,842,542		(25,597	)
	2/7/2012	HSBC Bank plc		2,353,000	SGD		1,816,945		1,842,773		(25,828	)
	2/8/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		4,218,000	SGD		3,257,064		3,316,948		(59,884	)
	2/8/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		469,000	SGD		362,153		368,479		(6,326	)
	2/9/2012	Barclays Bank plc		654,403	SGD		505,318		513,717		(8,399	)
	2/13/2012	HSBC Bank plc		2,333,200	SGD		1,801,650		1,832,170		(30,520	)
	2/14/2012	HSBC Bank plc		1,679,900	SGD		1,297,184		1,319,152		(21,968	)
	2/17/2012	Barclays Bank plc		1,863,000	SGD		1,438,568		1,458,146		(19,578	)
	2/17/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		2,796,000	SGD		2,159,010		2,186,989		(27,979	)
	2/17/2012	HSBC Bank plc		2,796,000	SGD		2,159,010		2,187,058		(28,048	)
	2/24/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		3,648,000	SGD		2,816,895		2,853,857		(36,962	)
	2/27/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		2,274,000	SGD		1,755,924		1,783,390		(27,466	)
	2/29/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		2,277,000	SGD		1,758,238		1,783,476		(25,238	)
	3/19/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		3,051,000	SGD		2,356,114		2,391,684		(35,570	)
	3/19/2012	HSBC Bank plc		3,488,000	SGD		2,693,585		2,733,628		(40,043	)
	3/19/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		4,370,000	SGD		3,374,703		3,416,999		(42,296	)
	3/21/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		3,284,900	SGD		2,536,776		2,562,524		(25,748	)
	3/21/2012	HSBC Bank plc		2,625,000	SGD		2,027,166		2,050,061		(22,895	)
	5/4/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		3,002,184	SGD		2,319,448		2,460,000		(140,552	)
	5/7/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		3,014,189	SGD		2,328,801		2,460,000		(131,199	)
	7/31/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		12,676,300	SGD		9,804,385		10,585,637		(781,252	)
	8/1/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		10,161,130	SGD		7,859,168		8,468,526		(609,358	)
	8/6/2012	Credit Suisse Financial Products London		7,818,300	SGD		6,047,574		6,526,670		(479,096	)
	8/6/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		7,822,083	SGD		6,050,500		6,526,670		(476,170	)
	Net Unrealized Depreciation									$	(15,287,071	)

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - continued

	Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts to Sell:
Settlement Date		Counterparty	Contracts to Deliver			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Net Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
	1/5/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		15,484,300	EUR	$	20,085,564		20,641,346	$	555,782
	1/11/2012	UBS AG		8,953,000	EUR		11,613,819		11,588,987		(24,832	)
	1/18/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		1,805,000	EUR		2,341,531		2,393,078		51,547
	1/27/2012	Citibank N.A.		1,858,400	EUR		2,410,921		2,512,798		101,877
	2/8/2012	Citibank N.A.		2,553,000	EUR		3,312,282		3,448,873		136,591
	2/8/2012	UBS AG		1,915,000	EUR		2,484,536		2,593,772		109,236
	2/9/2012	Barclays Bank plc		558,000	EUR		723,961		752,184		28,223
	2/9/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		137,000	EUR		177,747		184,517		6,770
	2/9/2012	HSBC Bank plc		419,000	EUR		543,620		563,471		19,851
	2/10/2012	Barclays Bank plc		465,000	EUR		603,307		630,540		27,233
	2/13/2012	UBS AG		446,000	EUR		578,675		605,565		26,890
	2/16/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		956,000	EUR		1,240,428		1,278,746		38,318
	2/16/2012	UBS AG		956,000	EUR		1,240,428		1,279,291		38,863
	2/17/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		1,022,000	EUR		1,326,079		1,371,340		45,261
	2/21/2012	UBS AG		1,022,000	EUR		1,326,136		1,368,264		42,128
	2/27/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		1,592,000	EUR		2,065,894		2,169,211		103,317
	2/29/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		966,320	EUR		1,253,994		1,320,476		66,482
	3/1/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		455,000	EUR		590,460		620,370		29,910
	3/5/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		457,000	EUR		593,081		624,582		31,501
	3/8/2012	HSBC Bank plc		714,000	EUR		926,640		986,748		60,108
	3/8/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		2,023,000	EUR		2,625,481		2,798,719		173,238
	3/8/2012	UBS AG		2,677,000	EUR		3,474,253		3,703,763		229,510
	3/26/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		1,040,000	EUR		1,350,015		1,455,594		105,579
	4/4/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		1,420,000	EUR		1,843,486		1,994,745		151,259
	4/5/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		952,000	EUR		1,235,934		1,332,457		96,523
	4/10/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		3,184,000	EUR		4,133,960		4,484,346		350,386
	4/10/2012	HSBC Bank plc		3,821,000	EUR		4,961,011		5,368,581		407,570
	4/10/2012	UBS AG		1,911,000	EUR		2,481,155		2,683,331		202,176
	4/12/2012	UBS AG		3,193,000	EUR		4,145,777		4,551,861		406,084
	4/16/2012	HSBC Bank plc		2,625,000	EUR		3,408,506		3,761,835		353,329
	4/23/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		3,529,000	EUR		4,582,843		4,989,477		406,634
	5/4/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		14,310,000	EUR		18,586,572		21,004,218		2,417,646
	5/7/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		1,650,000	EUR		2,143,208		2,420,550		277,342
	5/7/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		4,940,000	EUR		6,416,636		7,233,642		817,006
	5/7/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		7,580,000	EUR		9,845,770		11,083,855		1,238,085
	5/11/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		8,138,999	EUR		10,572,537		11,506,998		934,461

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - continued

Settlement Date		Counterparty	Contracts to Deliver			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Net Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
	5/11/2012	UBS AG		17,552,000	EUR	$	22,800,000		24,861,706	$	2,061,706
	5/18/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		469,000	EUR		609,298		657,046		47,748
	5/21/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		587,000	EUR		762,633		819,593		56,960
	5/21/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		98,000	EUR		127,322		137,474		10,152
	5/21/2012	UBS AG		469,000	EUR		609,327		655,099		45,772
	6/6/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		195,330	EUR		253,839		279,535		25,696
	6/7/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		505,700	EUR		657,186		728,284		71,098
	6/7/2012	UBS AG		263,000	EUR		341,784		377,510		35,726
	6/11/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		152,000	EUR		197,545		220,198		22,653
	6/11/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		2,880,200	EUR		3,743,226		4,152,816		409,590
	6/13/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		1,280,000	EUR		1,663,594		1,836,416		172,822
	6/14/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		266,000	EUR		345,721		380,077		34,356
	7/16/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		776,000	EUR		1,009,125		1,087,207		78,082
	7/16/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		3,154,000	EUR		4,101,520		4,400,224		298,704
	7/16/2012	UBS AG		3,585,000	EUR		4,662,001		5,022,047		360,046
	7/18/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		1,218,000	EUR		1,583,972		1,708,476		124,504
	7/18/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		716,000	EUR		931,136		1,002,400		71,264
	7/18/2012	UBS AG		3,585,000	EUR		4,662,182		5,027,066		364,884
	7/19/2012	Barclays Bank plc		913,000	EUR		1,187,352		1,279,204		91,852
	7/20/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		670,000	EUR		871,348		934,550		63,202
	7/20/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		4,966,000	EUR		6,458,382		6,920,369		461,987
	7/23/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		609,000	EUR		792,063		854,275		62,212
	8/1/2012	Barclays Bank plc		97,460	EUR		126,778		138,120		11,342
	8/2/2012	Barclays Bank plc		48,862	EUR		63,562		69,663		6,101
	8/6/2012	Barclays Bank plc		1,143,798	EUR		1,488,025		1,624,879		136,854
	8/6/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		772,000	EUR		1,004,334		1,085,972		81,638
	8/6/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		590,600	EUR		768,342		839,207		70,865
	8/8/2012	Citibank N.A.		502,668	EUR		653,972		705,721		51,749
	8/8/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		826,900	EUR		1,075,798		1,163,655		87,857
	8/8/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		1,711,000	EUR		2,226,014		2,407,805		181,791
	8/9/2012	Citibank N.A.		146,742	EUR		190,915		206,473		15,558
	8/9/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		1,351,000	EUR		1,757,688		1,914,489		156,801
	8/9/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		592,000	EUR		770,208		837,378		67,170
	8/10/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		900,000	EUR		1,170,947		1,271,961		101,014
	8/13/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		675,000	EUR		878,262		956,718		78,456
	8/13/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		1,035,000	EUR		1,346,668		1,465,187		118,519
	8/20/2012	Barclays Bank plc		3,901,000	EUR		5,076,396		5,591,881		515,485
	8/20/2012	Barclays Bank plc		2,600,000	EUR		3,383,397		3,749,096		365,699

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - continued

Settlement Date		Counterparty	Contracts to Deliver			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Net Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
	8/20/2012	Credit Suisse Financial Products London		2,600,000	EUR	$	3,383,397		3,734,120	$	350,723
	8/20/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		2,600,000	EUR		3,383,397		3,728,322		344,925
	8/20/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		1,300,000	EUR		1,691,698		1,865,305		173,607
	8/22/2012	UBS AG		2,270,000	EUR		2,954,081		3,232,707		278,626
	8/22/2012	UBS AG		2,271,000	EUR		2,955,382		3,234,358		278,976
	8/23/2012	Barclays Bank plc		416,915	EUR		542,566		599,524		56,958
	8/24/2012	Barclays Bank plc		698,541	EUR		909,087		1,002,127		93,040
	8/27/2012	Barclays Bank plc		2,255,000	EUR		2,934,847		3,242,916		308,069
	8/27/2012	Barclays Bank plc		449,732	EUR		585,319		648,289		62,970
	8/29/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		421,287	EUR		548,320		603,114		54,794
	8/31/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		19,595	EUR		25,505		28,340		2,835
	9/6/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		225,000	EUR		292,891		319,235		26,344
	9/10/2012	Barclays Bank plc		429,852	EUR		559,598		603,555		43,957
	9/10/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		495,000	EUR		644,411		692,411		48,000
	9/12/2012	Barclays Bank plc		421,332	EUR		548,528		589,022		40,494
	9/13/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		225,000	EUR		292,931		307,870		14,939
	9/14/2012	Barclays Bank plc		1,201,923	EUR		1,564,833		1,644,020		79,187
	9/17/2012	UBS AG		1,120,359	EUR		1,458,727		1,535,676		76,949
	9/19/2012	Barclays Bank plc		281,896	EUR		367,048		390,764		23,716
	9/24/2012	Barclays Bank plc		685,747	EUR		892,977		932,973		39,996
	9/24/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		1,923,000	EUR		2,504,122		2,626,683		122,561
	9/24/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		1,384,000	EUR		1,802,239		1,892,454		90,215
	9/26/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		1,538,000	EUR		2,002,855		2,080,745		77,890
	9/28/2012	Credit Suisse Financial Products London		2,430,000	EUR		3,164,582		3,279,285		114,703
	9/28/2012	Credit Suisse Financial Products London		1,200,000	EUR		1,562,757		1,628,400		65,643
	9/28/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		3,240,000	EUR		4,219,443		4,350,931		131,488
	9/28/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		1,200,000	EUR		1,562,757		1,631,772		69,015
	9/28/2012	HSBC Bank plc		1,620,000	EUR		2,109,721		2,176,276		66,555
	9/28/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		1,200,000	EUR		1,562,757		1,630,290		67,533
	10/5/2012	UBS AG		2,310,000	EUR		3,008,731		3,078,133		69,402
	10/9/2012	UBS AG		3,220,000	EUR		4,194,389		4,278,092		83,703
	10/11/2012	UBS AG		3,217,000	EUR		4,190,682		4,310,780		120,098
	10/24/2012	Barclays Bank plc		268,031	EUR		349,264		368,301		19,037
	10/25/2012	Barclays Bank plc		2,045,873	EUR		2,665,985		2,838,444		172,459
	10/26/2012	Citibank N.A.		799,500	EUR		1,041,856		1,113,040		71,184
	10/29/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		8,218,000	EUR		10,709,931		11,399,352		689,421

25

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - continued

Settlement Date		Counterparty	Contracts to Deliver			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Net Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
	10/29/2012	UBS AG		4,118,000	EUR	$	5,366,695		5,732,256	$	365,561
	10/31/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		1,370,039	EUR		1,785,559		1,931,495		145,936
	11/2/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		92,609	EUR		120,702		128,814		8,112
	11/5/2012	Barclays Bank plc		652,963	EUR		851,102		900,175		49,073
	11/5/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		1,990,000	EUR		2,593,859		2,746,658		152,799
	11/7/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		1,525,000	EUR		1,987,851		2,101,145		113,294
	11/8/2012	Barclays Bank plc		413,121	EUR		538,520		568,103		29,583
	11/15/2012	Barclays Bank plc		309,733	EUR		403,817		422,584		18,767
	11/19/2012	Barclays Bank plc		86,267	EUR		112,482		118,259		5,777
	11/21/2012	Barclays Bank plc		302,256	EUR		394,124		410,161		16,037
	12/3/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		1,380,000	EUR		1,799,960		1,857,342		57,382
	12/12/2012	Barclays Bank plc		1,340,000	EUR		1,748,164		1,804,578		56,414
	1/4/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		296,207,000	JPY		3,847,344		3,822,519		(24,825	)
	1/10/2012	Barclays Bank plc		88,890,000	JPY		1,154,651		1,074,849		(79,802	)
	1/10/2012	Citibank N.A.		44,450,000	JPY		577,391		537,823		(39,568	)
	1/10/2012	UBS AG		44,440,000	JPY		577,261		537,448		(39,813	)
	1/12/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		44,590,000	JPY		579,226		539,302		(39,924	)
	1/12/2012	HSBC Bank plc		44,630,000	JPY		579,746		540,871		(38,875	)
	1/13/2012	Barclays Bank plc		138,210,000	JPY		1,795,382		1,673,245		(122,137	)
	1/13/2012	HSBC Bank plc		139,260,000	JPY		1,809,021		1,687,243		(121,778	)
	1/13/2012	UBS AG		109,940,000	JPY		1,428,147		1,331,573		(96,574	)
	1/26/2012	Barclays Bank plc		411,460,000	JPY		5,345,998		5,001,945		(344,053	)
	1/26/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		102,590,000	JPY		1,332,927		1,248,084		(84,843	)
	1/26/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		239,615,982	JPY		3,113,271		2,919,725		(193,546	)
	1/26/2012	UBS AG		359,980,000	JPY		4,677,131		4,379,052		(298,079	)
	1/27/2012	HSBC Bank plc		443,025,359	JPY		5,756,205		5,405,385		(350,820	)
	2/10/2012	HSBC Bank plc		157,477,000	JPY		2,046,549		1,923,736		(122,813	)
	2/10/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		133,761,000	JPY		1,738,339		1,636,961		(101,378	)
	2/15/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		46,833,020	JPY		608,693		570,092		(38,601	)
	2/15/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		55,150,000	JPY		716,789		671,905		(44,884	)
	2/16/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		31,950,000	JPY		415,265		386,243		(29,022	)
	2/22/2012	HSBC Bank plc		144,240,000	JPY		1,874,946		1,740,663		(134,283	)
	2/23/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		144,300,000	JPY		1,875,762		1,740,546		(135,216	)
	3/1/2012	HSBC Bank plc		159,900,000	JPY		2,078,821		1,968,000		(110,821	)
	3/1/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		160,000,000	JPY		2,080,121		1,968,504		(111,617	)
	3/1/2012	UBS AG		178,400,000	JPY		2,319,335		2,194,504		(124,831	)
	3/15/2012	Citibank N.A.		109,701,956	JPY		1,426,664		1,414,341		(12,323	)
	3/19/2012	Citibank N.A.		142,403,000	JPY		1,852,118		1,772,482		(79,636	)

26

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - continued

Settlement Date		Counterparty	Contracts to Deliver			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Net Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
	3/19/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		85,500,000	JPY	$	1,112,028		1,063,909	$	(48,119	)
	3/19/2012	UBS AG		115,450,000	JPY		1,501,563		1,437,107		(64,456	)
	3/23/2012	UBS AG		86,066,450	JPY		1,119,504		1,065,535		(53,969	)
	4/20/2012	Citibank N.A.		100,800,000	JPY		1,312,060		1,227,965		(84,095	)
	4/20/2012	UBS AG		100,800,000	JPY		1,312,060		1,227,248		(84,812	)
	5/9/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		796,134,720	JPY		10,367,803		9,840,000		(527,803	)
	5/9/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		791,049,590	JPY		10,301,581		9,830,000		(471,581	)
	6/15/2012	Citibank N.A.		119,465,000	JPY		1,557,200		1,543,515		(13,685	)
	6/29/2012	Bank of America N.A.		330,341,000	JPY		4,307,439		4,261,502		(45,937	)
	6/29/2012	Barclays Bank plc		481,311,000	JPY		6,275,993		6,215,276		(60,717	)
	8/20/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		186,225,000	JPY		2,431,639		2,437,468		5,829
	8/20/2012	HSBC Bank plc		151,323,000	JPY		1,975,905		1,991,092		15,187
	8/20/2012	HSBC Bank plc		487,683,000	JPY		6,367,936		6,393,746		25,810
	8/20/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		152,028,000	JPY		1,985,111		1,988,724		3,613
	8/20/2012	UBS AG		305,946,000	JPY		3,994,900		4,010,829		15,929
	8/22/2012	Barclays Bank plc		151,705,000	JPY		1,981,000		1,992,710		11,710
	8/22/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		151,899,000	JPY		1,983,533		1,995,022		11,489
	8/22/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		119,300,000	JPY		1,557,848		1,566,974		9,126
	8/23/2012	Citibank N.A.		303,103,000	JPY		3,958,098		3,990,298		32,200
	8/23/2012	Credit Suisse Financial Products London		300,880,000	JPY		3,929,068		3,954,265		25,197
	8/23/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		149,920,000	JPY		1,957,744		1,976,884		19,140
	8/24/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		302,459,000	JPY		3,949,795		3,964,855		15,060
	8/27/2012	Barclays Bank plc		301,452,000	JPY		3,936,963		3,952,691		15,728
	8/27/2012	Barclays Bank plc		126,257,000	JPY		1,648,916		1,655,504		6,588
	8/27/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		256,658,000	JPY		3,351,953		3,377,434		25,481
	8/27/2012	HSBC Bank plc		488,094,000	JPY		6,374,508		6,403,332		28,824
	8/27/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		244,017,000	JPY		3,186,862		3,208,639		21,777
	8/27/2012	UBS AG		350,622,000	JPY		4,579,123		4,611,475		32,352
	8/30/2012	Barclays Bank plc		358,900,000	JPY		4,687,614		4,709,974		22,360
	8/31/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		150,260,000	JPY		1,962,608		1,969,203		6,595
	9/18/2012	Barclays Bank plc		109,297,635	JPY		1,428,276		1,410,201		(18,075	)
	9/28/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		66,105,000	JPY		864,078		870,949		6,871
	11/8/2012	Citibank N.A.		94,232,353	JPY		1,233,144		1,216,514		(16,630	)
	11/13/2012	Barclays Bank plc		92,567,000	JPY		1,211,521		1,199,987		(11,534	)
	11/14/2012	Barclays Bank plc		229,154,000	JPY		2,999,261		2,972,166		(27,095	)
	11/14/2012	UBS AG		93,849,000	JPY		1,228,334		1,218,739		(9,595	)
	11/16/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		306,357,000	JPY		4,009,949		4,011,851		1,902

27

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - continued

Settlement Date	Counterparty	Contracts to Deliver			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Net Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
11/19/2012	Barclays Bank plc		379,208,000	JPY	$	4,963,923		4,976,483	$	12,560
11/19/2012	HSBC Bank plc		79,941,000	JPY		1,046,447		1,047,308		861
11/19/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		152,982,000	JPY		2,002,571		2,002,251		(320	)
11/19/2012	UBS AG		122,208,000	JPY		1,599,732		1,602,728		2,996
11/21/2012	Barclays Bank plc		425,961,000	JPY		5,576,243		5,597,385		21,142
12/27/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		109,471,259	JPY		1,434,531		1,416,737		(17,794	)
Net Unrealized Appreciation									$	18,448,594

Forward Foreign Cross-Currency Exchange Contracts:

Settlement Date		Counterparty	Contracts to Buy			Contracts to Deliver			Net Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
	2/9/2012	Barclays Bank plc		1,270,000	AUD		100,711,000	JPY	$	(12,358	)
	2/9/2012	Citibank N.A.		1,270,000	AUD		100,774,500	JPY		(13,183	)
	2/9/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		1,270,000	AUD		100,810,060	JPY		(13,644	)
	2/8/2012	UBS AG		18,244,200	NOK		2,302,165	EUR		64,752
	2/9/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		36,433,000	NOK		4,581,903	EUR		149,013
	2/9/2012	UBS AG		25,499,600	NOK		3,206,005	EUR		105,446
	10/18/2012	Barclays Bank plc		4,236,000	NOK		537,666	EUR		2,418
	10/18/2012	Barclays Bank plc		4,253,000	NOK		539,824	EUR		2,428
	10/29/2012	Barclays Bank plc		8,488,000	NOK		1,086,255	EUR		(7,546	)
	11/8/2012	UBS AG		17,891,400	NOK		2,270,194	EUR		7,925
	2/9/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		4,666,000	PLN		1,173,394	EUR		(172,017	)
	2/10/2012	Barclays Bank plc		4,666,000	PLN		1,172,686	EUR		(171,255	)
	2/14/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		4,666,000	PLN		1,162,026	EUR		(158,052	)
	5/24/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		5,956,000	PLN		1,487,141	EUR		(223,804	)
	7/5/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		39,200,000	PLN		9,682,598	EUR		(1,379,572	)
	8/16/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		35,870,000	PLN		8,456,914	EUR		(774,847	)
	4/30/2012	Barclays Bank plc		261,920,000	SEK		29,030,613	EUR		209,229
	5/4/2012	Deutsche Bank AG London		14,943,320	SEK		1,660,000	EUR		6,734
	5/7/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		15,023,913	SEK		1,660,000	EUR		18,116
	6/29/2012	UBS AG		38,634,000	SEK		4,154,640	EUR		182,007
	Net Unrealized Depreciation								$	(2,178,210	)

AUD— Australian Dollar

BRL— Brazilian Real

CLP— Chilean Peso

EUR— Euro

GBP— British Pound

HUF— Hungarian Forint

ILS— Israeli Shekel

28

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - continued

INR— Indian Rupee

JPY— Japanese Yen

KRW— South Korean Won

MYR— Malaysian Ringgit

NOK— Norwegian Krone

PHP— Philippine Peso

PLN— Polish Zloty

SEK— Swedish Krona

SGD— Singapore Dollar

7. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

8. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

9. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income				Long-Term Capital Gains				Total
2011		2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$	62,195,831	$	5,529,842	$	378,415	$	—	$	62,574,246	$	5,529,842

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income		Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain	Net Unrealized Depreciation			Loss Carryforwards			Total
$	109,418,443	$	$	(17,709,711	)	$	(21,743,702	)	$	69,965,030

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses.

29

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

9. Income Tax Information - continued

As of December 31, 2011, the post-enactment accumulated capital losses were $21,743,702.

10. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

30

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”), as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 28, 2012

31

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

32

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

33

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

34

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

35

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and Lipper Index for the one-year period ended June 30, 2011. The Board also considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Citigroup World Government Bond Index (WGBI) ex-US Index, for the one-year period ended September 30, 2011. The Board also took into consideration that the Portfolio only recently commenced operations on May 1, 2009, as well as the strong performance of the Sub-Adviser’s comparable retail fund. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance. Based on its review and taking into account the limited performance history of the Portfolio, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s overall performance was satisfactory.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to

36

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the median of the Expense Group, the Expense Universe and the Sub-advised Expense Universe. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were above the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

37

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee and sub-advisory fee do not contain breakpoints. The Board further considered that the Portfolio’s management fees were below the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels, except asset levels exceeding $3 billion. The Board considered the effect of the Portfolio’s current size and potential growth on its performance and fees. The Board noted management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s advisory fee structure. The Board also noted that if the Portfolio’s assets increase over time, the Portfolio may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio was reasonable and appropriate.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

38

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio

Managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A and B shares of the MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio returned -5.57% and -5.78%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Dow Jones Aggressive Index¹, returned -5.14%.

Market Environment/Conditions

Economic and political unrest around the world caused sudden and often sharp shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to concerns about the economy and global events. After producing a modest return of 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the full year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Smaller domestic stocks, as measured by the Russell 2000 Index, were down 4.2% for the year. Growth style stocks performed modestly better than value style stocks. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis. Stocks in Europe were hurt by both a drop in prices and a stronger dollar, which made these stocks less valuable to the dollar based investors.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

The MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio invested in the underlying portfolios of the Met Investors Series Trust and the Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. to maintain its broad asset allocation goal of 100% to equities, although the Portfolio will hold residual cash from the cash held in the underlying equity portfolios. The lack of any bonds during a period of uncertainty heightened the volatility compared to a portfolio with lower exposure to equities. The investment in smaller and foreign stocks by underlying portfolios that invest mostly in large domestic stocks had a net negative impact on performance for the year. In addition, weak selection and sector positioning within several of the underlying portfolios hurt relative performance.

Among the Portfolio’s domestic equity portfolios, the BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio, the Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio, and the Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio contributed the most to relative performance. BlackRock—which struggled during 2009 and 2010—was helped most by an overweight and good selection in the Health Care sector. Among the stocks that contributed were Biogen Idec, Humana, and UnitedHealth Group. Legg Mason ClearBridge’s performance was aided by an overweight position and strong selection in the Health Care sector. Their strong performing Health Care stocks included Biogen Idec Inc., UnitedHealth Group Inc., Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. and Amgen Inc. Artisan’s return was boosted by owning stocks such as H&R Block, Fidelity National Financial, and Arch Capital Group.

The BlackRock Legacy Large Cap Growth Portfolio and the Davis Venture Value Portfolio were the biggest detractors from relative performance among the domestic equity portfolios. BlackRock Legacy was hurt by overall weak security selection, especially in the Energy and Health Care sectors. Oil service giant Schlumberger and biotech firm Dendreon were among the biggest detractors. Davis detracted from relative performance due in part to owning Sino-Forest, a Chinese forest plantation operator that lost nearly all of its value amid fraud allegations. Weak selection in the Energy sector also detracted from performance.

Within the core foreign equity funds, the Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio (subadvised by Artio Global Management, LLC during 2011) detracted from relative performance due in part to its exposure to stocks in emerging market countries such as China and India. It was also hurt by stock selection in the Financial Services sector in Asia (Hang Lung Properties) and Europe (Lloyds Banking Group). The Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio, the MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio’s single best performing underlying portfolio in 2010, lagged the broad global equity indices in 2011 due to its inclusion of economically sensitive industrial materials stocks. On the plus side, the MFS^® Research International Portfolio helped relative performance due to very good overall stock selection. Australian mining company (Iluka Resources) was a particular strong source of good performance.

Investment Committee

MetLife Advisers, LLC

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio and market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are as December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions. MetLife Advisers undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statements) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation, or country diversification (or that of the underlying portfolios used in the Portfolio) is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio

Managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio (Class A)		6.2
Jennison Growth Portfolio (Class A)		6.1
MFS® Research International Portfolio (Class A)		5.8
Harris Oakmark International Portfolio (Class A)		5.7
MFS® Value Portfolio (Class A)		5.3
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)		5.2
Davis Venture Value Portfolio (Class A)		5.2
Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio (Class A)		5.1
Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio (Class A)		4.2
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A)		4.1

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio

MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio managed by
MetLife Advisers, LLC vs. Dow Jones Aggressive Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/2011)
	1 Year		5 Year		Since Inception3
MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio—Class A		-5.57%		-2.12%		2.51%
Class B		-5.78%		-2.38%		2.48%
Dow Jones Aggressive Index1		-5.14%		0.29%		5.48%

The performance of Class B shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other class because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹ The Dow Jones Aggressive Index is a benchmark designed for asset allocation strategists who are willing to take 100% of the risk of the global equity securities market. It is a total returns index formed by equally weighing nine equity style indexes with monthly rebalancing. The nine Dow Jones equity style indexes include: U.S. Large Cap Value, U.S. Large Cap Growth, U.S. Mid Cap Value, U.S. Small Cap Value, U.S. Mid Cap Growth, U.S. Small Cap Growth, Emerging Markets LN, Europe/Canada, and Asia/Pacific.

²“Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

³ Inception of the Class B shares is 11/4/2004. Inception of the Class A shares is 5/2/2005. Index returns are based on an inception date of 11/4/2004.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A(a)(b)
Actual		0.49%	$	1,000.00	$	891.40	$	2.34
Hypothetical*		0.49%		1,000.00		1,022.73		2.50
Class B(a)(b)
Actual		0.74%	$	1,000.00	$	890.10	$	3.53
Hypothetical*		0.74%		1,000.00		1,021.47		3.77

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

(a) The annualized expense ratio reflects the expenses of both the Portfolio and the Underlying Portfolios in which it invests.

(b) The annualized expense ratio shown reflects an expense limitation agreement between MetLife Advisers, LLC and the Portfolio as described in Note 3 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Mutual Funds—100.0% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Affiliated Investment Companies—100.0%
Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio (formerly Artio International Stock Portfolio) (Class A)(b)		2,358,034	$	18,557,723
BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)(b)		3,050,939		31,607,728
BlackRock Legacy Large Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A)(b)		1,560,577		38,936,404
Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio (Class A)(a)		5,492,187		51,187,180
Davis Venture Value Portfolio (Class A)(b)		1,744,887		51,770,789
Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)(a)		1,510,886		19,853,045
Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)(a)		1,687,514		20,182,662
Harris Oakmark International Portfolio (Class A)(a)		4,786,245		56,716,999
Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A)* (a)		2,886,114		40,607,617
Janus Forty Portfolio (Class A)(a)		637,861		40,599,871
Jennison Growth Portfolio (Class A)(b)		5,036,240		61,139,959
Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio (Class A)(a)		5,345,269		41,746,547
Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A)(b)		3,020,358		30,233,783
Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)(b)		118,374		21,191,236
Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio (Class A)(b)		2,791,109		36,982,199
MFS® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio (Class A)(a)		3,020,878		28,275,418
MFS® Research International Portfolio (Class A)(a)		6,380,757		57,618,233
MFS® Value Portfolio (Class A)(b)		4,308,814		52,696,798
Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A)(a)		70,171		756,445
Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio (Class A)(b)		875,507		10,549,864
Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio (Class A)(a)		3,941,048		30,700,762
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A)(b)		2,781,486		41,360,701
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)(a)		2,477,609		52,029,797
T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A)(a)		2,015,402		19,206,783
Affiliated Investment Companies—(Continued)
Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)(a)		1,443,237	$	19,584,731
Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A)* (a)		2,233,939		28,527,406
Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio (Class A)(b)		2,740,707		37,054,363
Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio (Class A)(a)		6,688,265		62,334,629
Total Mutual Funds (Cost $971,943,727)				1,002,009,672
Total Investments—100.0% (Cost $971,943,727#)				1,002,009,672
Other assets and liabilities (net)—0.0%				(327,394	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	1,001,682,278

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $1,037,377,119. Aggregate unrealized appreciation and (depreciation) of investments were $63,655,770 and $(99,023,217), respectively, resulting in net unrealized depreciation of $(35,367,447) for federal income tax purpose.

(a) A Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust. (See Note 7 to Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in the investments of affiliated issuers.)

(b) A Portfolio of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. (See Note 7 to Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in the investments of affiliated issuers.)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Finanical Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Mutual Funds
Affiliated Investment Companies	$	1,002,009,672	$	—	$	—	$	1,002,009,672
Total Investments	$	1,002,009,672	$	—	$	—	$	1,002,009,672

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Affiliated investments at value (a)	$	1,002,009,672
Receivable for investments sold		62,648
Receivable from Adviser		7,987
Receivable for shares sold		260,669
Other assets		12,845
Total assets		1,002,353,821
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		67,514
Shares redeemed		255,803
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		86,255
Distribution and service fees - Class B		200,547
Administration fees		2,000
Custodian and accounting fees		2,067
Deferred trustees’ fees		45,815
Other expenses		11,542
Total liabilities		671,543
Net Assets	$	1,001,682,278
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	1,190,842,368
Accumulated net realized loss		(226,049,338	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments		30,065,945
Undistributed net investment income		6,823,303
Net Assets	$	1,001,682,278
Net Assets
Class A	$	56,268,166
Class B		945,414,112
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		6,233,839
Class B		105,149,635
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	9.03
Class B		8.99

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of affiliated investments was $971,943,727.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios	$	9,011,753
Total investment income		9,011,753
Expenses
Management fees		849,536
Administration fees		24,000
Custodian and accounting fees		24,800
Distribution and service fees - Class B		2,349,506
Audit and tax services		31,154
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Miscellaneous		2,796
Total expenses		3,350,502
Less expenses reimbursed by the Adviser		(22,483	)
Net expenses		3,328,019
Net investment income		5,683,734
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Affiliated Investments
Net realized gain on:
Affiliated investments		19,838,381
Capital gain distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		4,531,490
Net realized gain on affiliated investments and capital gain distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		24,369,871
Net change in unrealized depreciation on affiliated investments		(116,163,992	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on affiliated investments		(91,794,121	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(86,110,387	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	5,683,734		$	6,963,386
Net realized gain (loss) on affiliated investments and capital gain distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		24,369,871			(11,851,051	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on affiliated investments		(116,163,992	)		115,830,088
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations		(86,110,387	)		110,942,423
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(10,241	)		(4,286	)
Class B		(9,029,156	)		(8,105,028	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(9,039,397	)		(8,109,314	)
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		297,610,953			42,497,362
Net Increase in Net Assets		202,461,169			145,330,471
Net assets at beginning of period		799,221,109			653,890,638
Net assets at end of period	$	1,001,682,278		$	799,221,109
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	6,823,303		$	9,023,028

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		772,856		$	7,237,832			97,391		$	877,262
Shares issued through acquisition		6,076,502			63,449,447			—			—
Reinvestments		1,004			10,241			480			4,286
Redemptions		(744,568	)		(7,015,325	)		(5,207	)		(46,252	)
Net increase		6,105,794		$	63,682,195			92,664		$	835,296
Class B
Sales		16,177,290		$	155,674,181			15,047,586		$	129,799,885
Shares issued through acquisition		20,216,674			210,859,907			—			—
Reinvestments		886,950			9,029,156			908,635			8,105,028
Redemptions		(14,869,421	)		(141,634,486	)		(11,345,891	)		(96,242,847	)
Net increase		22,411,493		$	233,928,758			4,610,330		$	41,662,066
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	297,610,953					$	42,497,362

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009		2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	9.68		$	8.39		$	6.31	$	12.61		$	13.21
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (loss)(a)		(0.01	)		0.08			0.12		0.11			0.09
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.51	)		1.33			1.96		(4.71	)		0.34
Total from investment operations		(0.52	)		1.41			2.08		(4.60	)		0.43
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.13	)		(0.12	)		0.00		(0.41	)		(0.20	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00		(1.29	)		(0.83	)
Distributions from return of capital		0.00			0.00			0.00		(0.00	)+		0.00
Total distributions		(0.13	)		(0.12	)		0.00		(1.70	)		(1.03	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	9.03		$	9.68		$	8.39	$	6.31		$	12.61
Total Return (%)		(5.57	)		16.92			32.96		(40.67	)		3.12
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.10			0.11			0.12		0.11			0.10
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)(d)		0.10			0.10			0.10		0.10			0.10
Ratio of net investment income (loss) to average net assets (%)(e)		(0.08	)		0.87			1.75		1.11			0.69
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		22.6			13.1			40.4		29.6			27.2
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	56.3		$	1.2		$	0.3	$	0.2		$	0.4

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009		2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	9.64		$	8.37		$	6.31	$	12.58		$	13.18
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.06			0.09			0.10		0.08			0.05
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.60	)		1.28			1.96		(4.70	)		0.35
Total from investment operations		(0.54	)		1.37			2.06		(4.62	)		0.40
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.11	)		(0.10	)		0.00		(0.36	)		(0.17	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00		(1.29	)		(0.83	)
Distributions from return of capital		0.00			0.00			0.00		(0.00	)+		0.00
Total distributions		(0.11	)		(0.10	)		0.00		(1.65	)		(1.00	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	8.99		$	9.64		$	8.37	$	6.31		$	12.58
Total Return (%)		(5.78	)		16.50			32.65		(40.81	)		2.89
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)(b)(c)		0.35			0.36			0.37		0.36			0.35
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)(d)		0.35			0.35			0.35		0.35			0.35
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)(e)		0.61			1.02			1.51		0.84			0.36
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		22.6			13.1			40.4		29.6			27.2
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	945.4		$	798.0		$	653.6	$	500.9		$	816.8

+ Distributions from return of capital were less than $0.01.

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) See Note 3 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

(c) The ratio of operating expenses to average net assets does not include expenses of the Underlying Portfolios in which the Portfolio invests.

(d) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

(e) Recognition of net investment income by the Portfolio is affected by the timing of the declaration of dividends by the Underlying Portfolios in which it invests.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A and B Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

The Portfolio is designed on established principles of asset allocation to achieve a specific risk profile. The Portfolio will invest substantially all of its assets in other portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. (“Underlying Portfolios”).

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Valuation - Investments in the Underlying Portfolios are valued at their closing daily net asset value. The net asset value of the Portfolio is calculated based on the net asset values of the Underlying Portfolios in which the Portfolio invests. For information about the use of fair value pricing by the Underlying Portfolios, please refer to the prospectuses of the Underlying Portfolios.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - The Portfolio’s security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date. Interest income is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Capital gains distributions received from the Underlying Portfolios are recorded as net realized gain in the Statement of Operations.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to short-term capital gain distributions received from Underlying Portfolios, deferred trustees’ compensation, capital loss carryforwards and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$849,536		0.100	%	First $500 Million
		0.075	%	$500 Million to $1 Billion
		0.050	%	Over $1 Billion

In addition to the above management fee paid to the Adviser, the Portfolio indirectly pays MetLife Advisers a management fee through its investments in the Underlying Portfolios.

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Expense Limitation Agreement - The Adviser has entered into an expense limitation agreement with the Trust (“Expense Limitation Agreement”) in the interest of limiting expenses of the Portfolio. The Expense Limitation Agreement shall continue in effect with respect to the Portfolio until October 31, 2012. Pursuant to that Expense Limitation Agreement, the Adviser has agreed to waive or limit its fees and to assume other expenses so that the total annual operating expenses of the Portfolio other than interest, taxes, brokerage commissions, other expenditures which are capitalized or expensed in accordance with GAAP, other extraordinary expenses not incurred in the ordinary course of the Portfolio’s business, and Underlying Portfolios’ fees and expenses but including amounts payable pursuant to a plan adopted in accordance with Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act, are limited to the following expense ratios as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets:

	Maximum Expense Ratio under current Expense   Limitation Agreement						Expenses Deferred in
							2007		2008		2009		2010		2011
							Subject to repayment until December 31,
	Class A			Class B			2012		2013		2014		2015		2016
MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio		0.10	%		0.35	%	$	11,142	$	75,771	$	120,935	$	93,182	$	22,483
Strategic Growth Portfolio*		N/A			N/A		$	131,207	$	65,845	$	—	$	—	$	—

* On November 7, 2008, the Strategic Growth Portfolio, a series of the Trust, merged with and into MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio. At that time, the Adviser was entitled to a subsidy amount of $197,052 from the Portfolio. The repayment of such subsidy amount will be repaid, as applicable, by the MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio. During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not pay any of subsidy amounts for the Strategic Growth Portfolio.

As of December 31, 2011, there were no expenses repaid to the Adviser in accordance with the Expense Limitation Agreement. Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as expenses reimbursed by the Adviser in the Statement of Operations.

If in any year in which the Management Agreement is still in effect, the estimated aggregate operating expenses of the Portfolio for the fiscal year are less than the Maximum Expense Ratios for that year, subject to approval by the Trust’s Board, the Adviser shall be entitled to reimbursement by the Portfolio to the extent that the charge does not cause the expenses in such subsequent year to exceed the Maximum Expense Ratios as stated above. The Portfolio is not obligated to repay any expense paid by the Adviser more than five years after the end of the fiscal year in which such expense was incurred.

Distribution Agreement and Plan - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A and Class B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B distribution plan provides that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B Shares. However, under the Class B distribution agreement, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B distribution plan are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Under the terms of the Class B distribution plan and distribution agreement, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of the Underlying Portfolios by the Portfolio, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$—	$	249,406,505	$	—	$	224,990,607

With respect to the Portfolio’s merger with Metlife Aggressive Allocation Portfolio (Note 8) on April 29, 2011, the portfolio acquired securities with a cost of $236,080,380.

5. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Underlying Portfolios invest in securities and enter into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Underlying Portfolios may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Underlying Portfolios; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Underlying Portfolios may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Underlying Portfolios have unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Underlying Portfolios to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Underlying Portfolios restrict their exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom they undertake a significant volume of transactions. The Underlying Portfolios reduce the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into master netting arrangements to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Underlying Portfolios’ overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio and in the Underlying Portfolios in which it invests.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

7. Transactions in Securities of Affiliated Issuers

The Portfolio does not invest in the Underlying Portfolios for the purpose of exercising control; however, investments by the Portfolio within its principal investment strategies may represent a significant portion of the Underlying Portfolio’s net assets. Transactions in the Underlying Portfolios for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Underlying Portfolio (Class A)	Number of shares held at December 31, 2010		Shares purchased		Shares sold			Number of shares held at December 31, 2011
Baillie Gifford International Stock (formerly Artio International Stock)		3,162,502		920,829		(1,725,297	)		2,358,034
BlackRock Large Cap Value		3,744,026		1,039,167		(1,732,254	)		3,050,939
BlackRock Legacy Large Cap Growth		—		1,626,537		(65,960	)		1,560,577
Clarion Global Real Estate		3,831,814		1,931,117		(270,744	)		5,492,187
Davis Venture Value		1,989,862		586,369		(831,344	)		1,744,887
Dreman Small Cap Value		—		1,574,103		(63,217	)		1,510,886
Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value		1,253,311		517,506		(83,303	)		1,687,514
Harris Oakmark International		2,933,557		2,083,861		(231,173	)		4,786,245
Invesco Small Cap Growth		2,913,884		898,138		(925,908	)		2,886,114
Janus Forty		438,393		236,155		(36,687	)		637,861
Jennison Growth		5,164,838		1,689,150		(1,817,748	)		5,036,240
Lazard Mid Cap		—		21,534		(21,534	)		—
Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth		4,452,128		1,602,195		(709,054	)		5,345,269
Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth		—		3,150,026		(129,668	)		3,020,358
Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value		93,257		38,086		(12,969	)		118,374
Met/Dimensional International Small Company		2,011,465		995,258		(215,614	)		2,791,109
Met/Franklin Mutual Shares		—		23,419		(23,419	)		—
MFS® Emerging Markets Equity		2,132,290		1,043,504		(154,916	)		3,020,878
MFS® Research International		3,930,925		2,754,585		(304,753	)		6,380,757
MFS® Value		3,139,046		1,485,079		(315,311	)		4,308,814
Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth		—		234,948		(164,777	)		70,171
Neuberger Berman Genesis		1,429,586		325,314		(879,393	)		875,507
Pioneer Fund		—		25,503		(25,503	)		—
Rainier Large Cap Equity		6,812,030		1,381,667		(4,252,649	)		3,941,048
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth		—		2,959,025		(177,539	)		2,781,486
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value		1,775,905		829,759		(128,055	)		2,477,609
T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth		2,509,946		676,818		(1,171,362	)		2,015,402
Third Avenue Small Cap Value		1,604,429		474,631		(635,823	)		1,443,237
Turner Mid Cap Growth		1,821,234		669,761		(257,056	)		2,233,939
Van Eck Global Natural Resources		1,455,024		1,424,214		(138,531	)		2,740,707
Van Kampen Comstock		4,115,604		2,929,247		(356,586	)		6,688,265

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

7. Transactions in Securities of Affiliated Issuers - continued

Underlying Portfolio (Class A)	Net Realized Gain/(Loss) on sales of Underlying Portfolios			Capital Gain Distributions from Underlying Portfolios		Dividend income from Underlying Portfolios		Ending Value as of December 31, 2011
Baillie Gifford International Stock (formerly Artio International Stock)	$	(2,902,997	)	$	—	$	543,351	$	18,557,723
BlackRock Large Cap Value		6,374,974			—		460,727		31,607,728
BlackRock Legacy Large Cap Growth		(149,336	)		—		—		38,936,404
Clarion Global Real Estate		(901,613	)		—		1,622,659		51,187,180
Davis Venture Value		539,151			—		720,553		51,770,789
Dreman Small Cap Value		47,094			—		—		19,853,045
Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value		(10,316	)		—		107,319		20,182,662
Harris Oakmark International		(1,238,126	)		—		11,082		56,716,999
Invesco Small Cap Growth		2,521,371			—		—		40,607,617
Janus Forty		618,254			—		555,321		40,599,871
Jennison Growth		4,163,115			—		181,565		61,139,959
Lazard Mid Cap		2,010			—		—		—
Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth		262,455			—		39,340		41,746,547
Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth		(111,271	)		—		—		30,233,783
Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value		4,529			—		162,977		21,191,236
Met/Dimensional International Small Company		1,311,326			1,233,236		721,287		36,982,199
Met/Franklin Mutual Shares		235			—		—		—
MFS® Emerging Markets Equity		(36,285	)		—		378,113		28,275,418
MFS® Research International		(1,062,548	)		—		853,239		57,618,233
MFS® Value		(131,696	)		—		633,163		52,696,798
Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth		(131,116	)		—		—		756,445
Neuberger Berman Genesis		2,103,793			—		131,098		10,549,864
Pioneer Fund		(4,527	)		—		—		—
Rainier Large Cap Equity		1,808,625			—		330,592		30,700,762
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth		615,433			—		—		41,360,701
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value		(959,764	)		—		340,908		52,029,797
T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth		5,620,039			661,661		—		19,206,783
Third Avenue Small Cap Value		814,845			—		313,462		19,584,731
Turner Mid Cap Growth		775,632			—		—		28,527,406
Van Eck Global Natural Resources		845,556			2,636,593		360,953		37,054,363
Van Kampen Comstock		(950,461	)		—		544,044		62,334,629
	$	19,838,381		$	4,531,490	$	9,011,753	$	1,002,009,672

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

8. Acquisition

At the close of business on April 29, 2011, the Portfolio, with aggregate Class A and Class B net assets of $861,465 and $902,470,842, respectively, acquired all of the assets and liabilities of MetLife Aggressive Allocation Portfolio of the Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. (“MetLife Aggressive Allocation”). The acquisition was accomplished by a tax-free exchange of 6,076,502 Class A shares of the Portfolio (valued at $63,499,447) for 5,566,978 Class A shares of MetLife Aggressive Allocation and 20,216,674 Class B shares of the Portfolio (valued at $210,859,907) for 18,522,848 of Class B shares of MetLife Aggressive Allocation. MetLife Aggressive Allocation then distributed the Class A and B shares of the Portfolio that it received from the Portfolio to its shareholders by class. The transaction was part of a restructuring designed to eliminate the offering of overlapping Portfolios in the MetLife, Inc. families of funds with similar investment objectives and similar investment strategies that serve as funding vehicles for insurance contracts that are offered by affiliates of MetLife. The reorganization was proposed because MetLife Aggressive Allocation had experienced a significant decline in assets, which, if it continued, would affect the Portfolio’s ability to maintain certain operational efficiencies. MetLife Aggressive Allocation’s net assets on April 29, 2011, were $63,499,447 and $210,859,907 for Class A and Class B, respectively, including investments valued at $274,439,745 with a cost basis of $236,080,380. For financial reporting purposes, assets received and shares issued by the Portfolio were recorded at fair value; however, the cost basis of the investments received by the Portfolio from MetLife Aggressive Allocation were carried forward to align ongoing reporting of the Portfolio’s realized and unrealized gains and losses with amounts distributable to shareholders for tax purposes. The Portfolio acquired $(43,569,325) in capital loss carry forwards from MetLife Aggressive Allocation.

The net assets of the Portfolio immediately after the acquisition were $1,177,691,661, which included $38,359,366 of acquired unrealized appreciation.

Assuming the acquisition had been completed on January 1, 2011, the Portfolio’s pro-forma results of operations for the period ended December 31, 2011 are as follows:

(Unaudited)
Net investment income	$	4,324,693	(a)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments and capital gain distributions from Underlying Portfolios		(73,163,053)	(b)
Net decrease in assets from operations	$	(68,838,360)

Because the combined investment portfolios have been managed as a single integrated portfolio since the acquisition was completed, it is not practicable to separate the amounts of revenue and earnings of MetLife Aggressive Allocation that have been included in the Portfolio’s Statement of Operations since April 29, 2011.

(a) $5,683,734 as reported plus $(1,443,492) MetLife Aggressive Allocation pre-merger, plus $52,345 in lower Advisory fees, plus $32,106 of pro-forma eliminated other expenses.

(b) $(91,794,121) as reported plus $18,631,068 MetLife Aggressive Allocation pre-merger.

9. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gains				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$9,039,397	$	8,109,314	$	—	$	—	$	9,039,397	$	8,109,314

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Depreciation			Loss Carryforwards			Total
$6,869,118	$	—	$	(35,367,445	)	$	(160,615,948	)	$	(189,114,275	)

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

9. Income Tax Information - continued

As of December 31, 2011, the post-enactment accumulated capital losses were $0 and the pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards and expiration dates were as follows:

Expiring 12/31/2016	Expiring 12/31/2017			Expiring 12/31/2018		Total
$15,565,209*	$	141,629,034	*	$	3,421,705	$	160,615,948

* The Portfolio acquired capital losses in the merger with MetLife Aggressive Allocation Portfolio of the Metropolitan Series Fund on April 29, 2011.

10. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the transfer agent. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 28, 2012

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹ As the Adviser has the day-to-day responsibility for managing the MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio’s investments, the Board only approved an Advisory Agreement with respect to the MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio.

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the Board noted that the Adviser has hired, at its own cost, an independent consultant to provide research and consulting services with respect to the periodic asset allocation targets for each of the Asset Allocation Portfolios and to investments in other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. (the “Underlying Portfolios”), which may assist the Adviser with the selection of Underlying Portfolios for inclusion in each Asset Allocation Portfolio. Additionally, the Board considered that an Investment Committee, consisting of investment professionals from across MetLife, meets at least quarterly to review the asset allocations and discuss the performance of the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds and the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio.

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and Lipper Index for the one- and three- year periods ended June 30, 2011, and underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and Lipper Index for the five-year period ended June 30, 2011. The Board also considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Dow Jones Aggressive Index, for the one-, three- and five-year periods ended September 30, 2011. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance, including the peer group used for comparative purposes. The Board noted that Wilshire Associates, an independent consultant previously hired by the Adviser, provides research and consulting services with respect to the Portfolio’s allocation targets and investments in Underlying Portfolios. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s overall performance was adequate.

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees were above the Expense Group median and below the Expense Universe median, and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the Expense Group median and the Expense Universe median. The Board also considered that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s expenses. The Board noted that the Adviser is waiving fees and/or reimbursing expenses so that the Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses are capped. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory fee is consistent with industry norms and is fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the Underlying Portfolios in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

With respect to the MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board further considered that the Portfolio’s management fees were below the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

In addition, the Board reviewed the advisory fee to be paid to the Adviser for each of the Asset Allocation Portfolios. The Board concluded that the advisory fee to be paid to the Adviser with respect to each Asset Allocation Portfolio is based on services to be provided that are in addition to, rather than duplicative of, the services provided pursuant to the advisory agreements for the Underlying Portfolios of the Asset Allocation Portfolios and that the additional services are necessary because of the differences between the investment policies, strategies and techniques of the Asset Allocation Portfolios and those of their Underlying Portfolios.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

25

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio

Managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC and Pacific Investment Management Company LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

Since its inception on May 2, 2011, the Class B shares of the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio returned -5.28%. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Dow Jones Moderate Index¹, returned -5.42%.

Market Environment/Conditions

Economic and political turmoil around the world caused sudden and often sharp shifts in sentiment for the capital markets in the period since the Portfolio’s inception in May 2011. Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 6.0% over the eight-month period as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates. Below investment grade bonds experienced a sharp sell-off during the third quarter as investors feared that the European credit crisis might spread and derail the already fragile global economic recovery. High yield bonds recovered in the fourth quarter, but were down slightly for the period.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the period in response to ongoing concerns about the economy’s health, along with questions concerning the challenging fiscal issues faced by governments around the world. Stock prices fell sharply in the months from May to September before rallying in the fourth quarter to finish the period down 6.4% as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Smaller domestic stocks, as measured by the Russell 2000 Index, were down 13.5% for the same period. Developed international stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell 19.8% on both a local and dollar basis.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

The MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio began operation on May 2, 2011. It was composed of two distinct portions or sleeves. First, approximately 70% of the Portfolio’s assets were invested in a variety of underlying portfolios of the Met Investors Series Trust and the Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. to achieve and maintain a broad asset allocation of 40% to fixed income and 30% to equities. These assets will be referred to as the “Base Sleeve” in this commentary; they were managed by the Investment Committee of MetLife Advisers. Second, the remaining 30% of the assets—which will be referred to as the “Overlay Sleeve”—were invested in various fixed income instruments that served as the collateral for the equity derivative instruments purchased by the Sleeve’s subadviser, Pacific Investment Management Company (PIMCO), to keep the Portfolio’s overall volatility level within the desired range.

During the initial eight month period ending in December, the Portfolio remained close to the desired split between the Base (70%) and Overlay (30%) sleeves. It is important to remember that the Overlay sleeve is managed to maintain a volatility level and the resulting equity exposure is a result of that process. Combining the two sleeves, the realized net equity exposure of the Portfolio ranged from approximately 20% to 67% over the course of the eight month period.

Base Sleeve

Over the course of the eight month period, the absolute performance of the Base Sleeve was adversely impacted by exposure to what is generally perceived to be risky asset classes. Within the fixed income segment, the performance of high-yield and foreign bonds trailed that of U.S. investment grade bonds. Within equities, smaller and international stocks lagged the performance of large domestic stocks. Most of the underperformance of these classes occurred in August and September when investors appeared to shun risk. In addition, weak stock selection and sector positioning within several of the underlying portfolios hurt relative performance.

Among the fixed income underlying portfolios, the PIMCO Total Return Portfolio, although modestly positive for the period, significantly underperformed the broad bond benchmarks due to its shorter-than-benchmark duration positioning, underweight to Treasuries, and lower average credit quality. The Templeton International Bond Portfolio experienced significant relative underperformance during the third quarter primarily due to having a below-benchmark position in countries such as Japan, the United Kingdom, and Germany. The Met/Franklin Low Duration Portfolio was hurt by its shorter-than-benchmark duration positioning and its exposure to lower quality credit securities in a period that favored high quality and longer maturities. The biggest fixed income contributor to relative performance was PIMCO’s Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio. Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) did well as investors sought the safety of U.S. Treasury Securities in times of stress.

While all underlying equity portfolios were down for the period, some of them performed well relative to their benchmark. This included the Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio, the Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio, and the MFS Research International Portfolio. Among the equity portfolios that detracted from relative performance were the Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio (subadvised by Artio Global Management, LLC during 2011) and the Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio.

Overlay Sleeve

The equity exposure in the Overlay Sleeve ranged between -10% and +37% percent during the period. The equity exposure was reduced during August and September when volatility was high and stock prices fell, and the equity exposure remained low going into October when stocks rallied amid continued high volatility, hurting relative portfolio performance.

In regards to the fixed income collateral, an overall underweight to duration detracted from returns as rates fell on worries of a global economic slowdown. However, a duration overweight towards the end of the year mitigated some of this negative impact. The fixed income collateral is predominantly invested in Treasury securities and the duration was 10.9 years at the end of the year, neutral to the benchmark duration.

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio

Managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC and Pacific Investment Management Company LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

The base sleeve is managed by:

Investment Committee

MetLife Advisers, LLC

The overlay sleeve is subadvised by:

Pacific Investment Management Company LLC

Vineer Bhansali, Ph.D., Managing Director

Steve A. Rodosky, Managing Director

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio and market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are as December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon an economic, market, or other conditions. Neither MetLife Advisers nor the subadvisory firm undertakes any obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statements) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation, or country diversification (or that of the underlying portfolios used in the Portfolio) is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio (Class A)		10.7
PIMCO Total Return Portfolio (Class A)		10.6
U.S. Treasury Notes 3.625%, 2/15/21		5.1
Harris Oakmark International Portfolio (Class A)		4.7
MFS® Research International Portfolio (Class A)		4.7
U.S. Treasury Bonds 4.25%, 11/15/40		3.8
Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio (Class A)		3.6
Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio (Class A)		3.6
Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio (Class A)		3.5
U.S. Treasury Bonds 5.375%, 2/15/31		3.1

Top Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Affiliated Investment Companies		69.7
U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies		24.4
Cash & Cash Equivalents		5.7
Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities		0.2

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio

MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio managed by
MetLife Advisers, LLC and Pacific Investment Management Company LLC vs. Dow Jones Moderate Index¹

	Cumulative  Return2 for the period ended 12/31/11
	Since Inception3
MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio—Class B		-5.28%
Dow Jones Moderate Index1		-5.42%

¹The Dow Jones Moderate Index is a total returns index designed to provide asset allocation strategists with a target risk benchmark. Each month, the index adjusts its weightings of stocks, bonds, and cash indices (both domestic and foreign) from Barclays and Dow Jones such that the risk of that combination will have 60% of the risk of an all equity portfolio.

²“Cumulative Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

³ Inception of the Class B shares is 5/2/2011. Index returns are based on an inception date of 5/2/2011.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class B(a)(b)
Actual		0.93%	$	1,000.00	$	968.60	$	4.61
Hypothetical*		0.93%		1,000.00		1,020.51		4.74

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

(a) The annualized expense ratio reflects the expenses of both the Portfolio and the Underlying Portfolios in which it invests.

(b) The annualized expense ratio reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 3 to the Financial Statements.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Mutual Funds—69.6% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Affiliated Investment Companies—69.6%
Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio (formerly Artio International Stock Portfolio) (Class A)(a)		7,807,928	$	61,448,390
BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio (Class A)(a)		3,044,460		337,630,671
BlackRock High Yield Portfolio (Class A)(b)		5,353,594		44,702,507
BlackRock Legacy Large Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A)(a)		864,594		21,571,615
Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio (Class A)(b)		4,619,317		43,052,037
Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)(b)		4,187,270		55,020,730
Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)(b)		5,518,180		65,997,438
Harris Oakmark International Portfolio (Class A)(b)		12,455,061		147,592,469
Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A)* (b)		3,920,928		55,167,465
Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio (Class A)(b)		2,858,213		22,322,640
Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A)* (a)		5,616,204		56,218,203
Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)(a)		127,813		22,881,113
Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio (Class A)(a)		3,088,787		40,926,424
Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio (Class A)(b)		4,335,481		44,828,873
Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio (Class A)* (b)		11,144,581		110,108,464
Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio (Class A)(b)		5,585,748		64,459,530
MFS® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio (Class A)(b)		4,436,241		41,523,213
MFS® Research International Portfolio (Class A)(b)		16,236,619		146,616,673
MFS® Value Portfolio (Class A)(a)		1,852,583		22,657,087
Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A)(b)		1,906,142		20,548,208
Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio (Class A)(a)		1,878,913		22,640,900
PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio (Class A)(b)		5,701,296		67,902,432
PIMCO Total Return Portfolio (Class A)(b)		27,522,732		334,125,969
Affiliated Investment Companies—(Continued)
Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)(b)		4,004,996	$	54,347,794
Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio (Class A)(a)		3,022,552		40,864,899
Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio (Class A)(b)		2,412,741		22,486,748
Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio (Class A)(a)		8,637,733		112,376,910
Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio (Class A)(a)		9,164,191		111,894,776
Total Affiliated Investment Companies (Cost $2,212,999,723)				2,191,914,178
U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—24.3%
U.S. Treasury—24.3%
U.S. Treasury Bonds 8.000%, 11/15/21	$	57,700,000		90,192,313
5.500%, 08/15/28†		4,800,000		6,777,000
5.250%, 02/15/29		7,800,000		10,777,408
6.250%, 05/15/30		7,600,000		11,755,064
5.375%, 02/15/31†		68,200,000		97,216,986
4.500%, 05/15/38		3,100,000		4,085,704
3.500%, 02/15/39		51,600,000		58,050,000
4.500%, 08/15/39		44,600,000		58,997,460
4.375%, 05/15/40		7,100,000		9,224,455
4.250%, 11/15/40†		93,100,000		118,746,164
4.375%, 05/15/41		42,600,000		55,513,125
U.S. Treasury Notes 0.375%, 06/30/13		40,000,000		40,101,560
3.500%, 05/15/20		12,000,000		13,806,564
3.625%, 02/15/21†		137,600,000		159,777,267
U.S. Treasury Strip Principal 2.911%, 11/15/27 (c)(d)		27,800,000		18,312,249
2.027%, 05/15/39 (c)(d)		6,700,000		2,955,745
2.202%, 02/15/41 (c)(d)		24,000,000		9,931,920
Total U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies (Cost $717,963,619)				766,220,984
Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—0.2%
Capital Markets—0.0%
Morgan Stanley 2.016%, 01/24/14 (e)		500,000		460,489

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount		Value
Diversified Financial Services—0.1%
Bank of America Corp. Series MTN 1.848%, 01/30/14 (e)	$	1,000,000	$	903,363
Citigroup, Inc. 1.848%, 01/13/14 (e)		1,000,000		973,037
				1,876,400
Machinery—0.1%
Vessel Management Services, Inc. 3.432%, 08/15/36 (f)		4,100,000		4,139,274
Total Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities (Cost $4,954,338)				6,476,163
Mortgage-Backed Securities—0.0%
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities—0.0%
JPMorgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp. Series 2011-C4 Class A3 4.106%, 07/15/46 (144A)		100,000		106,173
Total Mortgage-Backed Securities (Cost $101,000)				106,173
Short-Term Investments—5.7%
Repurchase Agreements—2.6%
Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Repurchase Agreement, dated 12/30/11 at 0.030% to be repurchased at $44,700,149 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $32,259,000 U.S. Treasury Bond at 5.000% due 05/15/37 with a value of $45,394,478.		44,700,000		44,700,000
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement, dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $27,671,031 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $27,270,000 U.S. Treasury Notes at 2.500% due 03/31/13 with a value of $28,224,450.		27,671,000		27,671,000
Goldman Sachs & Co. Repurchase Agreement, dated 12/30/11 at 0.110% to be repurchased at $10,000,122 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $10,041,000 Federal National Mortgage Association at 3.500% due 12/01/41 with a value of $10,284,929.		10,000,000		10,000,000
				82,371,000

Security Description	Par Amount		Value
Short-Term Investments—(Continued)
U.S. Treasury—3.1%
U.S. Treasury Bills 0.022%, 01/19/12 (d)	$	90,000	$	89,999
0.036%, 03/15/12 (d)		4,130,000		4,129,697
0.030%, 03/22/12 (d)		8,000,000		7,999,460
0.040%, 03/22/12 (d)		1,200,000		1,199,892
0.038%, 03/29/12 (d)		6,700,000		6,699,382
0.030%, 06/07/12 (d)		900,000		899,882
0.044%, 06/14/12 (d)		23,900,000		23,895,176
0.040%, 06/21/12 (d)		10,900,000		10,897,904
0.052%, 06/28/12 (d)		31,100,000		31,091,882
0.053%, 08/23/12 (d)		10,300,000		10,296,470
				97,199,744
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $179,570,744)				179,570,744
Total Investments—99.8% (Cost $3,115,589,424#)				3,144,288,242
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—0.2%				7,650,000
Net Assets—100.0%			$	3,151,938,242

* Non-income producing security.

† All or a portion of the security was pledged as collateral against open future contracts. At the period end, the value of the securities pledged amounted to $46,052,144.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $3,117,260,341. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $66,850,759 and $(39,822,858), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $27,027,901 for federal income tax purposes.

(a) A Portfolio of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. (See Note 7 to Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in the investments of affiliated issuers.)

(b) A Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust. (See Note 7 to Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in the investments of affiliated issuers.)

(c) Principal only security.

(d) Zero coupon bond—Interest rate represents current yield to maturity.

(e) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2011. Maturity date shown for callable securities reflects the earliest possible call date.

(f) Security was valued in good faith under procedures approved by the Board of Trustees.

(144A) Securities exempt from registration under Rule 144A of the Securities Act of 1933. These securities may be resold in transactions exempt from registration, normally to qualified institutional buyers. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of 144A securities was $106,173, which is 0.0% of the Portfolio’s net assets.

MTN— Medium Term Note

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Total Mutual Fund*	$	2,191,914,178	$	—	$	—	$	2,191,914,178
Total U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies*		—		766,220,984		—		766,220,984
Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities
Capital Markets		—		460,489		—		460,489
Diversified Financial Services		—		1,876,400		—		1,876,400
Machinery		—		—		4,139,274		4,139,274
Total Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities		—		2,336,889		4,139,274		6,476,163
Total Mortgage-Backed Securities*		—		106,173		—		106,173
Total Short-Term Investments*		—		179,570,744		—		179,570,744
Total Investments	$	2,191,914,178	$	948,234,790	$	4,139,274	$	3,144,288,242
Futures Contracts**
Futures Contracts (Unrealized Appreciation)	$	6,020,350	$	—	$	—	$	6,020,350
Total Futures Contracts	$	6,020,350	$	—	$	—	$	6,020,350

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

** Derivative instruments such as futures contracts are valued on the unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the instrument.

Following is a reconciliation of Level 3 assets for which significant unobservable inputs were used to determine fair value:

Investments in Securities	May 2, 2011*		Change in Unrealized Appreciation		Purchases		Balance as of December 31, 2011		Change in Unrealized Appreciation for Investments Held at December 31, 2011
Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities
Machinery	$	—	$	39,274	$	4,100,000	$	4,139,274	$	39,274

* Commencement of operations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)	$	870,003,064
Affiliated investments at value (b)		2,191,914,178
Repurchase Agreements		82,371,000
Cash		408
Cash collateral for futures contracts		22,000
Receivable for shares sold		16,934,790
Interest receivable		6,576,325
Total assets		3,167,821,765
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		11,567,500
Shares redeemed		409,790
Net variation margin on futures contracts		2,593,615
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		643,759
Distribution and service fees - Class B		618,681
Administration fees		5,299
Custodian and accounting fees		4,358
Deferred trustees’ fees		5,674
Other expenses		34,847
Total liabilities		15,883,523
Net Assets	$	3,151,938,242
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	3,167,734,668
Accumulated net realized loss		(50,516,129	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments and futures contracts		34,719,168
Undistributed net investment income		535
Net Assets	$	3,151,938,242
Net Assets
Class B	$	3,151,938,242
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class B		333,044,699
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class B	$	9.46

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreements, was $820,218,701.

(b) Identified cost of affiliated investments was $2,212,999,723.

Statement of Operations

For the Period Ended December 31, 2011*

Investment Income
Interest	$	6,747,200
Total investment income		6,747,200
Expenses
Management fees		2,597,478
Administration fees		27,058
Custodian and accounting fees		38,807
Distribution and service fees - Class B		2,400,395
Audit and tax services		38,808
Legal		80,157
Trustees’ fees and expenses		29,757
Shareholder reporting		9,150
Insurance		441
Organizational expense		1,300
Miscellaneous		9,384
Total expenses		5,232,735
Less management fee waiver		(64,041	)
Net expenses		5,168,694
Net investment income		1,578,506
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments, Affiliated Investments, Futures Contracts and Foreign Currency Transactions
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments		8,370,366
Futures contracts		(56,794,485	)
Foreign currency transactions		150,979
Net realized loss on investments, futures contracts and foreign currency transactions		(48,273,140	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on:
Investments		49,784,363
Affiliated investments		(21,085,545	)
Futures contracts		6,020,350
Net change in unrealized appreciation on investments, affiliated investments, and futures contracts		34,719,168
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments, affiliated investments, futures contracts and foreign currency transactions		(13,553,972	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(11,975,466	)

* Commencement of operations was 5/2/2011.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio

Statement of Changes in Net Assets

	Period Ended December 31, 2011*
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	1,578,506
Net realized loss on investments, affiliated investments, futures contracts and foreign currency transactions		(48,273,140	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation on investments, affiliated investments and futures contracts		34,719,168
Net decrease in net assets resulting from operations		(11,975,466	)
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class B		(4,059,770	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(4,059,770	)
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		3,167,973,478
Net Increase in Net Assets		3,151,938,242
Net assets at end of period	$	3,151,938,242
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	535

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Period Ended December 31, 2011*
	Shares			Value
Class B
Sales		334,052,518		$	3,177,775,566
Reinvestments		431,891			4,059,770
Redemptions		(1,439,710	)		(13,861,858	)
Net increase		333,044,699		$	3,167,973,478
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	3,167,973,478

* Commencement of operations was 5/2/2011.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class B
	Period Ended December 31, 2011(a)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.00
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(b)		0.01
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments		(0.54	)
Total from investment operations		(0.53	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.01	)
Total distributions		(0.01	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	9.46
Total Return (%)		(5.28	)**
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)(c)(e)		0.54	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(d)(e)		0.54	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.17	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		10.4
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	3,151.9

* Annualized.

** Not annualized.

(a) Commencement of operations was 5/2/2011.

(b) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(c) See Note 3 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

(d) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

(e) The ratio of operating expenses to average net assets does not include expenses of the Underlying Portfolios in which the Portfolio invests.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio (the “Portfolio”) (commenced operations on May 2, 2011), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class B Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio.

The Portfolio invests approximately 70% of its assets (the “Base Portion”) in other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. (“Underlying Portfolios”) and approximately 30% of its assets (the “Overlay Portion”) in a portfolio of fixed income instruments that serve as collateral for equity derivative instruments, primarily stock index futures.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies, including Underlying Portfolios, are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns will remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service for three fiscal years after the returns are filed.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to futures transactions, foreign currency transactions, swap transactions, options transactions, premium amortization adjustments, paydown transactions, contingent payment debt instrument adjustments, forward transactions, deferred trustees’ compensation, and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

Mortgage Related and Other Asset Backed Securities - The Portfolio may invest in mortgage related or other asset-backed securities. These securities may include mortgage pass-through securities, collateralized mortgaged obligations (“CMOs”), commercial mortgage-backed securities, mortgage dollar rolls, CMO residuals, stripped mortgage backed securities (“SMBS”) and other securities that directly or indirectly represent a participation in, or are secured by or payable from, mortgage loans on real property or other receivables. The value of some mortgage or asset-backed securities may be particularly sensitive to changes in prevailing interest rates. Early repayment of principal on some mortgage-related securities may expose the Portfolio to a lower rate of return upon reinvestment of principal. The value of these securities may fluctuate in response to the market’s perception of the creditworthiness of the issuers. Additionally, although mortgages and mortgage-related securities are generally supported by some form of government or private guarantee and/or insurance, there is no assurance that private guarantors or insurers will meet their obligations.

In one type of SMBS, one class receives all of the interest from the mortgage assets (the interest-only or “IO” class), while the other class will receive all of the principal (the principal-only or “PO” class). Payments received for the IOs are included in interest income on the Statement of Operations of the Portfolio. Because principal will not be received at the maturity of an IO, adjustments are made to the book value of the security until maturity. These adjustments are included in interest income on the Statement of Operations of the Portfolio. Payments received for POs are treated as reductions to the cost and par value of the securities. Details of mortgage related and other asset-backed securities held by the Portfolio are included in the Portfolio’s Schedule of Investments.

The Portfolio may invest a significant portion of its assets in securities of issuers that hold mortgage and asset-backed securities and direct investments in securities backed by commercial and residential mortgage loans and other financial assets. The value and related income of these securities are sensitive to changes in economic conditions, including delinquencies and/or defaults, and may be negatively impacted by increased volatility of market prices and periods of illiquidity.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is responsible for managing the Base Portion of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with Pacific Investment Management Company LLC (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Overlay Portion of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets of the Overlay Portion of the Portfolio.

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser (Overlay Portion managed by  PIMCO) for the period ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets of the Overlay Portion
$2,077,052		0.725	%	First $250 Million
		0.700	%	$250 Million to $750 Million
		0.675	%	$750 Million to $1 Billion
		0.650	%	Over $1 Billion

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Management Fees earned by the Adviser (Base Portion managed by  MLA) for the period ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets of the Base Portion
$520,426		0.100	%	First $500 Million
		0.075	%	$500 Million to $1 Billion
		0.050	%	Over $1 Billion

In addition to the above management fees paid to the Adviser, the Portfolio indirectly pays MLA a management fee through its investment in the Underlying Portfolios.

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Management Fee Waiver - The Subadviser voluntarily agreed to waive 50% of its subadvisory fee through July 31, 2011. Also through July 31, 2011, the Adviser voluntarily agreed to waive a portion of the management fee in an amount equal to the subadvisory fees waived. Amounts waived for the period ended December 31, 2011 are shown as a management fee waiver in the Statement of Operations.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Expense Limitation Agreement - The Adviser has entered into an expense limitation agreement with the Trust (“Expense Limitation Agreement”) in the interest of limiting expenses of the Portfolio. The Expense Limitation Agreement shall continue in effect with respect to the Portfolio until October 31, 2012. Pursuant to that Expense Limitation Agreement, the Adviser has agreed to waive or limit its fees and to assume other expenses so that the total annual operating expenses of the Portfolio other than interest, taxes, brokerage commissions, other expenditures which are capitalized or expensed in accordance with GAAP, other extraordinary expenses not incurred in the ordinary course of the Portfolio’s business, and Underlying Portfolios’ fees and expenses but including amounts payable pursuant to a plan adopted in accordance with Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act, are limited to the following expense ratio as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets:

Maximum Expense Ratio under current
Expense Limitation  Agreement

Class B

0.65%

If in any year in which the Management Agreement is still in effect, the estimated aggregate operating expenses of the Portfolio for the fiscal year are less than the Maximum Expense Ratio for that year, subject to approval by the Trust’s Board, the Adviser shall be entitled to reimbursement by the Portfolio to the extent that the charge does not cause the expenses in such subsequent year to exceed the Maximum Expense Ratio as stated above. The Portfolio is not obligated to repay any expense paid by the Adviser more than five years after the end of the fiscal year in which such expense was incurred.

Distribution Agreement and Plan - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B distribution plan provides that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B Shares. However, under the Class B distribution agreement, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B distribution plan are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the period ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B distribution plan and distribution agreement the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the period ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$854,055,656	$	2,219,734,057	$	144,357,809	$	—

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments

Futures Contracts - The Portfolio may buy and sell futures contracts (on recognized exchanges) as a hedge, to maintain investment exposure to a target asset class or to enhance return. The Portfolio may be subject to fluctuations in equity prices, interest rates, commodity prices and foreign currency exchange rates in the normal course of pursuing its investment objective. Futures contracts are standardized agreements to buy or sell a security, or deliver a final cash settlement price in connection with an index, interest rate, currency, or other asset. The Portfolio must deposit an amount (“initial margin”) equal to a certain percentage of the face value of the futures contract. The initial margin may be in the form of cash or securities which is returned when the Portfolio’s obligations under the contract have been satisfied. If cash is deposited as the initial margin, it is shown as “restricted cash” on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Futures contracts are marked-to-market daily and subsequent payments (“variation margin”) are made or received by the Portfolio depending on the daily fluctuations in the value of the futures contracts. These amounts are reflected as receivables or payables on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Risks of entering into futures contracts (and related options) include the possibility that the market for these instruments may be illiquid and that a change in the value of the contract or option may not correlate perfectly with changes in the value of the underlying instrument. Futures contracts are exchange traded and the exchange’s clearinghouse, as counterparty to all exchange traded futures, guarantees the futures contracts against default.

Options Contracts - An option contract purchased by the Portfolio gives the Portfolio the right, but not the obligation, to buy (call) or sell (put) an underlying instrument at a fixed exercise price during a specified period. Call options written by the Portfolio gives the holder the right to buy the underlying instrument from the Portfolio at a fixed exercise price; put options written by the Portfolio give the holder the right to sell the underlying instrument to the Portfolio at a fixed exercise price.

The Portfolio may use options to hedge against changes in values of securities the Portfolio owns or expects to purchase, to maintain exposure to the broad equity markets or to enhance return. Writing puts or buying calls tend to increase the Portfolio’s exposure to the underlying instrument and writing calls or buying puts tend to decrease the Portfolio’s exposure to the underlying instrument, and can be used to hedge other Portfolio investments. For options purchased to hedge the Portfolio’s investments, the potential risk to the Portfolio is that the change in value of options contracts may not correspond perfectly to the change in value of the hedged instruments. In addition, losses may arise from changes in the value of the underlying instrument, if there is an illiquid secondary market for the option contract, or if the counterparty to the option contract is unable to perform. The maximum loss for purchased options is limited to the premium initially paid for the option.

The main risk associated with purchasing an option is that the option expires without being exercised. In this case, the option expires worthless and the premium paid for the option is considered a loss. The risk associated with writing a call option is that the Portfolio may forgo the opportunity for a profit if the market value of the underlying instrument increases and the option is exercised, requiring the Portfolio to sell the underlying instrument at a price below its market value. When the Portfolio writes a call option on a security it does not own, its exposure on such an option is theoretically unlimited. The risk in writing a put option is that the Portfolio may incur a loss if the market value of the underlying instrument decreases and the option is exercised, requiring the Portfolio to purchase the underlying instrument at a price above its market value. In addition, the Portfolio risks not being able to enter into a closing transaction for the written option as the result of an illiquid market for the option.

Purchases of put and call options are recorded as investments, the value of which are marked-to-market daily. When a purchased option expires without being exercised, the Portfolio will realize a loss equal to the premium paid. When the Portfolio enters into a closing sale transaction, the Portfolio will realize a gain or loss depending on whether the sales proceeds from the closing sale transaction are greater or less than the premium initially paid for the option. When the Portfolio exercises a put option, it will realize a gain or loss from the sale of the underlying instrument and the proceeds from such sale will be decreased by the premium originally paid for the put option. When the Portfolio exercises a call option, the cost of the security which the Portfolio purchases upon exercise will be increased by the premium originally paid for the call option.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments - continued

The premium received for a written option is recorded as an asset and an equivalent liability. The liability is marked-to-market daily based on the option’s quoted market price. When a written option expires without being exercised or the Portfolio enters into a closing purchase transaction, the Portfolio realizes a gain (or loss if the cost of the closing purchase transaction exceeds the premium received when the option was sold) without regard to any unrealized gain or loss on the underlying instrument and the liability related to such option is eliminated. When a written call option is exercised, the Portfolio realizes a gain or loss, as adjusted for the premium received, from the sale of the underlying instrument. When a written put option is exercised, the premium received is offset against the amount paid for the purchase of the underlying instrument.

At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had the following derivatives, categorized by risk exposure:

	Asset Derivatives			Liability Derivatives
Risk Exposure	Statement of Assets and Liabilities Location	Fair Value		Statement of Assets and Liabilities Location	Fair Value
Interest Rate	Unrealized appreciation on futures contracts*	$	16,250	Unrealized depreciation on futures contracts*	$	—
Equity	Unrealized appreciation on futures contracts*		6,004,100	Unrealized depreciation on futures contracts*		—
Total		$	6,020,350		$	—

* Includes cumulative appreciation/depreciation of futures contracts as reported in the notes to financial statements. Only the current day’s variation margin is reported within the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

Transactions in derivative instruments during the period ended December 31, 2011, were as follows:

Statement of Operations Location - Net Realized Gain (Loss)	Equity			Interest Rate		Total
Futures contracts	$	(56,794,485	)	$	—	$	(56,794,485	)
Options purchased (a)		(8,079	)		—		(8,079	)
	$	(56,802,564	)	$	—	$	(56,802,564	)
Statement of Operations Location - Net Change in Unrealized Gain (Loss)
Future contracts	$	6,004,100		$	16,250	$	6,020,350

(a) Includes options purchased which are part of investments as shown in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities and net realized gain (loss) on investments and change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments as shown in the Statement of Operations.

For the period ended December 31, 2011, the average amount or number per contract outstanding for each derivative type was as follows:

Derivative Description	Average Notional or Face Amount(b)
Futures contracts long	$	90,011,963
Futures contracts short		(79,300	)
Options purchased		42,688

(b) Averages are based on activity levels during 2011.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Futures Contracts

The futures contracts outstanding as of December 31, 2011 and the description and unrealized appreciation (depreciation) were as follows:

Futures Contracts - Long	Exchange	Expiration Date		Number of Contracts		Contract Amount		Valuation as of December 31, 2011		Unrealized Appre ciation
90 Day Euro Dollar Futures	Chicago Mercantile Exchange		06/18/2012		222	$	55,107,133	$	55,108,725	$	1,592
90 Day Euro Dollar Futures	Chicago Mercantile Exchange		09/17/2012		200		49,617,842		49,632,500		14,658
S&P 500 E Mini Index Futures	Index and Options Market		03/16/2012		10,971		681,109,630		687,113,730		6,004,100
Net Unrealized Appreciation										$	6,020,350

7. Transactions in Securities of Affiliated Issuer

The Portfolio does not invest in the Underlying Portfolios for the purpose of exercising control; however, investments by the Portfolio within its principal investment strategies may represent a significant portion of the Underlying Portfolio’s net assets. Transactions in the Underlying Portfolios for the period from May 2, 2011 (commencement of operations) through December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Underlying Portfolio (Class A)	Number of shares held at May 2, 2011*		Shares purchased		Shares sold		Number of shares held at December 31, 2011
Baillie Gifford International Stock (formerly Artio International Stock)		—		7,807,928		—		7,807,928
BlackRock Bond Income		—		3,044,460		—		3,044,460
BlackRock High Yield		—		5,353,594		—		5,353,594
BlackRock Legacy Large Cap Growth		—		864,594		—		864,594
Clarion Global Real Estate		—		4,619,317		—		4,619,317
Dreman Small Cap Value		—		4,187,270		—		4,187,270
Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value		—		5,518,180		—		5,518,180
Harris Oakmark International		—		12,455,061		—		12,455,061
Invesco AIM Small Cap Growth		—		3,920,928		—		3,920,928
Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth		—		2,858,213		—		2,858,213
Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth		—		5,616,204		—		5,616,204
Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value		—		127,813		—		127,813
Met/Dimensional International Small Company		—		3,088,787		—		3,088,787
Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate		—		4,335,481		—		4,335,481
Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return		—		11,144,581		—		11,144,581
Met/Templeton International Bond		—		5,585,748		—		5,585,748
MFS® Emerging Markets Equity		—		4,436,241		—		4,436,241
MFS® Research International		—		16,236,619		—		16,236,619
MFS® Value		—		1,852,583		—		1,852,583
Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth		—		1,906,142		—		1,906,142
Neuberger Berman Genesis		—		1,878,913		—		1,878,913
PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond		—		5,701,296		—		5,701,296
PIMCO Total Return		—		27,522,732		—		27,522,732
Third Avenue Small Cap Value		—		4,004,996		—		4,004,996
Van Eck Global Natural Resources		—		3,022,552		—		3,022,552

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

7. Transactions in Securities of Affiliated Issuer - continued

Underlying Portfolio (Class A)	Number of shares held at May 2, 2011*		Shares purchased		Shares sold		Number of shares held at December 31, 2011
Van Kampen Comstock		—		2,412,741		—		2,412,741
Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities		—		8,637,733		—		8,637,733
Western Asset Management U.S. Government		—		9,164,191		—		9,164,191

* Commencement of Operations

Underlying Portfolio (Class A)	Net Realized Gain/(Loss) on sales of Underlying Portfolios		Capital Gain Distributions from Underlying Portfolios		Dividend income from Underlying Portfolios		Ending Value as of December 31, 2011
Baillie Gifford International Stock (formerly Artio International Stock)	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	61,448,390
BlackRock Bond Income		—		—		—		337,630,671
BlackRock High Yield		—		—		—		44,702,507
BlackRock Legacy Large Cap Growth		—		—		—		21,571,615
Clarion Global Real Estate		—		—		—		43,052,037
Dreman Small Cap Value		—		—		—		55,020,730
Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value		—		—		—		65,997,438
Harris Oakmark International		—		—		—		147,592,469
Invesco AIM Small Cap Growth		—		—		—		55,167,465
Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth		—		—		—		22,322,640
Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth		—		—		—		56,218,203
Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value		—		—		—		22,881,113
Met/Dimensional International Small Company		—		—		—		40,926,424
Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate		—		—		—		44,828,873
Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return		—		—		—		110,108,464
Met/Templeton International Bond		—		—		—		64,459,530
MFS® Emerging Markets Equity		—		—		—		41,523,213
MFS® Research International		—		—		—		146,616,673
MFS® Value		—		—		—		22,657,087
Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth		—		—		—		20,548,208
Neuberger Berman Genesis		—		—		—		22,640,900
PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond		—		—		—		67,902,432
PIMCO Total Return		—		—		—		334,125,969
Third Avenue Small Cap Value		—		—		—		54,347,794
Van Eck Global Natural Resources		—		—		—		40,864,899
Van Kampen Comstock		—		—		—		22,486,748
Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities		—		—		—		112,376,910
Western Asset Management U.S. Government		—		—		—		111,894,776
	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	2,191,914,178

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

8. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

9. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio and the Underlying Portfolios invest in securities and enter into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio and the Underlying Portfolios may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio or the Underlying Portfolios; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio and the Underlying Portfolios may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio or the Underlying Portfolios have unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio and the Underlying Portfolios to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio and the Underlying Portfolios restrict their exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom they undertake a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio and the Underlying Portfolios reduce the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into master netting arrangements to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s and the Underlying Portfolios’ overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio and in the Underlying Portfolios in which it invests.

10. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the period ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Ordinary Income	Long-Term Capital Gain		Total
$4,059,770	$	—	$	4,059,770

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Carryforward and Deferrals			Total
$6,209	$	—	$	27,027,901	$	(42,824,862	)	$	(15,790,752	)

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses.

As of December 31, 2011, the post-enactment accumulated capital losses were $40,980,440.

11. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

11. Recent Accounting Pronouncements - continued

processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”), as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations, the statement of changes in net assets, and the financial highlights for the period from May 2, 2011 (commencement of operations) to December 31, 2011. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audit included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the transfer agent, custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, and the results of its operations, the changes in its net assets, and the financial highlights for the period from May 2, 2011 (commencement of operations) to December 31, 2011, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 28, 2012

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

24

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio

Managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A and B shares of the MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio returned -1.51% and -1.70%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Dow Jones Moderate Index¹, returned 0.28%.

Market Environment/Conditions

Economic and political unrest around the world caused sudden and often sharp shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. As a result, riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit based bonds were extremely volatile throughout the year. Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates. Below investment grade bonds experienced a sharp sell-off during the third quarter as investors feared that the European credit crisis might spread and derail the already fragile global economic recovery, but high yield bonds recovered fully in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a tepid, but respectable 5.0% total return. Foreign bonds had similar returns as domestic bonds; although differences in exchange rates produced variations in the returns of bonds from different countries.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to concerns about the economy and global events. After producing a modest return of 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the full year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Smaller domestic stocks, as measured by the Russell 2000 Index, were down 4.2% for the year. Growth style stocks performed modestly better than value style stocks. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis. Stocks in Europe were hurt by both a drop in prices and a stronger dollar, which made these stocks less valuable to the dollar based investors.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

The MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio invested in the underlying portfolios of the Met Investors Series Trust and the Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. to maintain its broad asset allocation goal of 35% to fixed income and 65% to equities. The inclusion of bonds during a period of uncertainty dampened the volatility and reduced the downside compared to a portfolio with higher exposure to equities. However, a higher than benchmark exposure to high yield and foreign bonds—both of which boosted relative performance in 2010—detracted from relative performance in 2011 as these asset classes trailed domestic investment grade bonds. The overweighting was a result of the opportunistic investment in these asset classes by several of the core bond portfolios. The investment in smaller and foreign stocks by underlying portfolios that invest mostly in large domestic stocks had a net negative impact on performance for the year. In addition, weak selection and sector positioning within several of the underlying portfolios hurt relative performance.

Among the Portfolio’s domestic equity portfolios, the BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio, the Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio, and the Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio contributed the most to relative performance. BlackRock—which struggled during 2009 and 2010—benefited in 2011 from an overweight and good selection in the Health Care sector. Among the stocks that contributed were Biogen Idec, Humana, and UnitedHealth Group. Neuberger Berman’s good return was driven mostly by its strong stock selection. Among the stocks contributing to performance were Tractor Supply, a retail store that caters to recreational farmers and ranchers, and Polaris Industries, a manufacturer of sports vehicles. Legg Mason ClearBridge’s performance was aided by an overweight position and strong selection in the Health Care sector. Their strong performing Health Care stocks included Biogen Idec Inc., UnitedHealth Group Inc., Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc., and Amgen Inc.

The BlackRock Legacy Large Cap Growth Portfolio and the Davis Venture Value Portfolio were the biggest detractors from relative performance among the domestic equity portfolios. BlackRock Legacy was hurt by overall weak security selection, especially in the Energy and Health Care sectors. Oil service giant Schlumberger and biotech firm Dendreon were among the biggest detractors. Davis detracted from relative performance due in part to owning Sino-Forest, a Chinese forest plantation operator that lost nearly all of its value amid fraud allegations. Weak selection in the Energy sector also detracted from performance.

Within the core foreign equity funds, the Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio (subadvised by Artio Global Management, LLC during 2011) detracted from relative performance due in part to its exposure to stocks in emerging market countries such as China and India. It was also hurt by stock selection in the Financial Services sector in Asia (Hang Lung Properties) and Europe (Lloyds Banking Group). The Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio, the MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio’s single best performing underlying portfolio in 2010, lagged the broad global equity indices in 2011 due to its inclusion of economically sensitive industrial materials stocks. On the plus side, the MFS^® Research International Portfolio helped relative performance due to very good overall stock selection. Australian mining company (Iluka Resources) was a particular strong source of good performance.

For fixed income managers to do well in 2011, they needed to hold higher quality instruments—preferably Treasuries—and hold bonds with longer maturities. The PIMCO Total Return Portfolio, although positive for the year, significantly underperformed the broad bond benchmarks due to its shorter duration, underweight to Treasuries, and lower average credit quality. The Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio’s impact on performance was mixed through the year: it helped performance for three out of four quarters due to its avoidance of troubled European sovereigns, most notably Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain, but its significant relative underperformance during the third quarter overwhelmed the otherwise good performance. During the third quarter, Met/Templeton’s underweight to core foreign countries such as Japan, the United Kingdom, and Germany, as well as currency

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio

Managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

positioning, detracted from performance. The biggest fixed income contributor to relative performance was the PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio. Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) did well as investors sought the safety of U.S. Treasury securities in times of stress.

Investment Committee

MetLife Advisers, LLC

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio and market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are as December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions. MetLife Advisers undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statements) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation, or country diversification (or that of the underlying portfolios used in the Portfolio) is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
PIMCO Total Return Portfolio (Class A)		12.5
BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio (Class A)		6.2
MFS® Value Portfolio (Class A)		5.1
Davis Venture Value Portfolio (Class A)		4.9
Harris Oakmark International Portfolio (Class A)		4.7
MFS® Research International Portfolio (Class A)		4.7
Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio (Class A)		4.1
Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio (Class A)		4.0
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)		4.0
Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A)		3.9

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio

MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio managed by
MetLife Advisers, LLC vs. Dow Jones Moderate Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		5 Year		Since Inception3
MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio—Class A		-1.51%		0.71%		3.80%
Class B		-1.70%		0.45%		3.49%
Dow Jones Moderate Index1		0.28%		2.83%		5.45%

The performance of Class B shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other class because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹ The Dow Jones Moderate Index is a total returns index designed to provide asset allocation strategists with a target risk benchmark. Each month, the index adjusts its weightings of stocks, bonds, and cash indices (both domestic and foreign) from Barclays and Dow Jones such that the risk of that combination will have 60% of the risk of an all equity portfolio.

² “Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

³ Inception of the Class B shares is 11/4/2004. Inception of the Class A shares is 5/2/2005. Index returns are based on an inception date of 11/4/2004.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A(a)
Actual		0.40%	$	1,000.00	$	936.90	$	1.95
Hypothetical*		0.40%		1,000.00		1,023.18		2.04
Class B(a)
Actual		0.65%	$	1,000.00	$	935.80	$	3.17
Hypothetical*		0.65%		1,000.00		1,021.92		3.31

*   Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

**  Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

(a) The annualized expense ratio reflects the expenses of both the Portfolio and the Underlying Portfolios in which it invests.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Mutual Funds — 100.0% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Affiliated Investment Companies—100.0%
Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio (formerly Artio International Stock Portfolio) (Class A)(b)		11,467,679	$	90,250,635
BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio (Class A)(b)		5,462,578		605,799,888
BlackRock High Yield Portfolio (Class A)(a)		12,155,578		101,499,077
BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)(b)		28,846,011		298,844,673
BlackRock Legacy Large Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A)(b)		7,346,787		183,302,344
Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio (Class A)(a)		20,373,190		189,878,127
Davis Venture Value Portfolio (Class A)(b)		16,157,613		479,396,367
Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)(a)		15,835,481		189,392,358
Harris Oakmark International Portfolio (Class A)(a)		38,474,999		455,928,734
Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A)* (a)		27,257,861		383,518,103
Janus Forty Portfolio (Class A)(a)		3,002,136		191,085,940
Jennison Growth Portfolio (Class A)(b)		16,235,745		197,101,941
Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio (Class A)(a)		25,249,604		197,199,410
Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio (Class A)(a)		7,964,044		101,939,768
Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)(b)		555,482		99,442,383
Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio (Class A)(b)		13,545,599		179,479,194
Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio (Class A)(a)		19,482,644		201,450,539
Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio (Class A)* (a)		20,214,033		199,714,651
Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio (Class A)(a)		25,592,762		295,340,475
MFS® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio (Class A)(a)		9,822,892		91,942,265
MFS® Research International Portfolio (Class A)(a)		50,130,245		452,676,111
MFS® Value Portfolio (Class A)(b)		40,528,161		495,659,406
Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A)(a)		1,274,520		13,739,329
Affiliated Investment Companies—(Continued)
Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio (Class A)(b)		16,372,662	$	197,290,572
PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio (Class A)(a)		25,474,188		303,397,579
PIMCO Total Return Portfolio (Class A)(a)		100,153,508		1,215,863,588
Pioneer Fund Portfolio (Class A)(a)		7,101,593		94,806,267
Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio (Class A)(a)		24,660,423		192,104,694
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A)(b)		12,924,761		192,191,190
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)(a)		18,332,740		384,987,537
T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A)(a)		19,251,964		183,471,216
Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)(a)		13,881,957		188,378,152
Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio (Class A)(b)		13,377,233		180,860,197
Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio (Class A)(a)		41,388,761		385,743,256
Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio (Class A)(b)		7,784,655		101,278,367
Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio (Class A)(b)		32,895,708		401,656,595
Total Mutual Funds (Cost $9,453,238,466)				9,716,610,928
Total Investments—100.0% (Cost $9,453,238,466#)				9,716,610,928
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—0.0%				(2,548,894	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	9,714,062,034

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $9,674,777,121. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $273,267,750 and $(231,433,943), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $41,833,807 for federal income tax purpose.

(a) A Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust. (See Note 7 to Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in the investments of affiliated issuers.)

(b) A Portfolio of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. (See Note 7 to Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in the investments of affiliated issuers.)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Finanical Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Mutual Funds
Affiliated Investment Companies	$	9,716,610,928	$	—	$	—	$	9,716,610,928
Total Investments	$	9,716,610,928	$	—	$	—	$	9,716,610,928

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Affiliated investments at value (a)	$	9,716,610,928
Cash		2
Receivable for investments sold		899,770
Receivable for shares sold		1,135,694
Total assets		9,718,646,394
Liabilities
Due to Adviser		1,370
Payables for:
Shares redeemed		2,035,464
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		443,005
Distribution and service fees - Class B		2,055,327
Administration fees		2,000
Custodian and accounting fees		2,067
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		20,060
Total liabilities		4,584,360
Net Assets	$	9,714,062,034
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	10,032,504,557
Accumulated net realized loss		(799,041,495	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments		263,372,462
Undistributed net investment income		217,226,510
Net Assets	$	9,714,062,034
Net Assets
Class A	$	2,127,145
Class B		9,711,934,889
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		210,679
Class B		966,817,412
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	10.10
Class B		10.05

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of affiliated investments was $9,453,238,466.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios	$	185,345,722
Total investment income		185,345,722
Expenses
Management fees		5,338,974
Administration fees		24,000
Deferred expense reimbursement		16,435
Custodian and accounting fees		24,800
Distribution and service fees - Class B		24,814,045
Audit and tax services		24,536
Legal		33,757
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,423
Miscellaneous		15,054
Total expenses		30,327,024
Net investment income		155,018,698
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Affiliated Investments
Net realized gain on:
Affiliated investments		305,108,146
Capital gain distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		101,989,158
Net realized gain on affiliated investments and capital gain distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		407,097,304
Net change in unrealized depreciation on affiliated investments		(767,428,743	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on affiliated investments		(360,331,439	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(205,312,741	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	155,018,698		$	136,877,349
Net realized gain (loss) on affiliated investments and capital gain distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		407,097,304			(53,001,247	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on affiliated investments		(767,428,743	)		955,242,062
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations		(205,312,741	)		1,039,118,164
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(43,737	)		(40,007	)
Class B		(156,392,220	)		(160,875,717	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(156,435,957	)		(160,915,724	)
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		821,267,688			1,325,294,687
Net Increase in Net Assets		459,518,990			2,203,497,127
Net assets at beginning of period		9,254,543,044			7,051,045,917
Net assets at end of period	$	9,714,062,034		$	9,254,543,044
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	217,226,510		$	156,415,460

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		79,400		$	798,700			73,021		$	704,686
Reinvestments		4,050			43,737			4,095			40,007
Redemptions		(106,773	)		(1,059,667	)		(30,388	)		(293,578	)
Net increase (decrease)		(23,323	)	$	(217,230	)		46,728		$	451,115
Class B
Sales		135,632,477		$	1,430,712,357			172,821,795		$	1,667,855,982
Reinvestments		14,521,097			156,392,220			16,500,074			160,875,717
Redemptions		(74,502,352	)		(765,619,659	)		(53,482,306	)		(503,888,127	)
Net increase		75,651,222		$	821,484,918			135,839,563		$	1,324,843,572
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	821,267,688					$	1,325,294,687

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009		2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.43		$	9.37		$	7.28	$	12.15		$	12.17
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.20			0.18			0.29		0.17			0.15
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.35	)		1.10			1.80		(3.83	)		0.47
Total from investment operations		(0.15	)		1.28			2.09		(3.66	)		0.62
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.18	)		(0.22	)		0.00		(0.53	)		(0.24	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00		(0.68	)		(0.40	)
Total distributions		(0.18	)		(0.22	)		0.00		(1.21	)		(0.64	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.10		$	10.43		$	9.37	$	7.28		$	12.15
Total Return (%)		(1.51	)		13.85			28.71		(31.75	)		5.16
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)(b)(c)		0.06			0.06			0.06		0.06			0.06
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)(d)		0.06			0.06			0.06		0.06			0.06
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)(e)		1.93			1.88			3.72		1.75			1.22
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		25.6			13.0			28.3		23.4			17.0
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	2.1		$	2.4		$	1.8	$	1.7		$	1.1

	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009		2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.38		$	9.33		$	7.27	$	12.12		$	12.15
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.16			0.17			0.21		0.19			0.13
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.33	)		1.08			1.85		(3.87	)		0.46
Total from investment operations		(0.17	)		1.25			2.06		(3.68	)		0.59
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.16	)		(0.20	)		0.00		(0.49	)		(0.22	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00		(0.68	)		(0.40	)
Total distributions		(0.16	)		(0.20	)		0.00		(1.17	)		(0.62	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.05		$	10.38		$	9.33	$	7.27		$	12.12
Total Return (%)		(1.70	)		13.58			28.34		(31.93	)		4.88
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)(b)(c)		0.31			0.31			0.31		0.31			0.31
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)(d)		0.31			0.31			0.31		0.31			0.31
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)(e)		1.56			1.75			2.59		1.94			1.05
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		25.6			13.0			28.3		23.4			17.0
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	9,711.9		$	9,252.1		$	7,049.3	$	4,841.9		$	6,743.6

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) See Note 3 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

(c) The ratio of operating expenses to average net assets does not include expenses of the Underlying Portfolios in which the Portfolio invests.

(d) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

(e) Recognition of net investment income by the Portfolio is affected by the timing of the declaration of dividends by the Underlying Portfolios in which it invests.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A and B Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

The Portfolio is designed on established principles of asset allocation to achieve a specific risk profile. The Portfolio will invest substantially all of its assets in other portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. (“Underlying Portfolios”).

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Valuation - Investments in the Underlying Portfolios are valued at their closing daily net asset value. The net asset value of the Portfolio is calculated based on the net asset values of the Underlying Portfolios in which the Portfolio invests. For information about the use of fair value pricing by the Underlying Portfolios, please refer to the prospectuses of the Underlying Portfolios.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - The Portfolio’s security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date. Interest income is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Capital gains distributions received from the Underlying Portfolios are recorded as net realized gain in the Statement of Operations.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to short-term capital gain distributions received from Underlying Portfolios, deferred trustees’ compensation, capital loss carryforwards and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year ended December 31, 2011	% per annum	Average Daily Net Assets
$5,338,974	0.100%	First $500 Million
	0.075%	$500 Million to $1 Billion
	0.050%	Over $1 Billion

In addition to the above management fee paid to the Adviser, the Portfolio indirectly pays MetLife Advisers a management fee through its investments in the Underlying Portfolios.

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Expense Limitation Agreement - On November 7, 2008, the Strategic Growth and Income Portfolio, a series of the Trust, merged with and into the Portfolio.

The Adviser had entered into an expense limitation agreement with the Trust (“Expense Limitation Agreement”) in the interest of limiting the expenses of the Strategic Growth and Income Portfolio. The Expense Limitation Agreement with respect to the Strategic Growth and Income Portfolio has since expired. Pursuant to the Expense Limitation Agreement, the Adviser had agreed to waive or limit its fees and to assume other expenses so that the total annual operating expenses of the Strategic Growth and Income Portfolio other than interest, taxes, brokerage commissions, other expenditures which were capitalized in accordance with the GAAP, other extraordinary expenses not incurred in the ordinary course of the Portfolio’s business and Underlying Portfolios’ fees and expenses but including amounts payable pursuant a plan adopted in accordance with Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act were limited to a certain percentage of Strategic Growth and Income Portfolio’s average daily net assets, as set forth in the Expense Limitation Agreement.

At the time of the merger, the Adviser, subject to approval by the Trust’s Board, was entitled to an aggregate reimbursement of $280,240 from the Strategic Growth and Income Portfolio. Such amount was a contractual obligation of the Strategic Growth and Income Portfolio under the Expense Limitation Agreement. As a result of the merger, the Portfolio assumed this contractual obligation of the Strategic Growth and Income Portfolio. Any reimbursement of the Adviser owed by the Strategic Growth and Income Portfolio will now be made by the Portfolio, subject to prior approval by the Trust’s Board. The obligation to reimburse the Adviser for any expenses of the Strategic Growth and Income Portfolio paid by the Adviser expires on December 31, 2013.

As of December 31, 2011, there were no expenses deferred in 2011 and $16,435 was repaid to the Adviser in accordance with the Expense Limitation Agreement. The amount of expenses deferred in 2006 and 2007, which were recovered during the year ended December 31, 2011 was $3,795 and $12,640, respectively. As of December 31, 2011, there was $230,935 in expense deferrals eligible for recoupment by the Adviser. Amounts recouped for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Deferred expense reimbursement in the Statement of Operations.

Expenses Deferred in
2007		2008		2009		2010		2011
Subject to repayment until December 31,
2012		2013		2014		2015		2016
$	119,279	$	115,766	$	—	$	—	$	—

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Distribution Agreement and Plan - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A and Class B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B distribution plan provides that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B Shares. However, under the Class B distribution agreement, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B distribution plan are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Under the terms of the Class B distribution plan and distribution agreement, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of the Underlying Portfolios by the Portfolio, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases		Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government	U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government
$—	$3,472,230,616	$—	$2,550,213,077

5. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Underlying Portfolios invest in securities and enter into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Underlying Portfolios may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Underlying Portfolios; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Underlying Portfolios may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Underlying Portfolios have unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Underlying Portfolios to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Underlying Portfolios restrict their exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom they undertake a significant volume of transactions. The Underlying Portfolios reduce the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into master netting arrangements to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Underlying Portfolios’ overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio and in the Underlying Portfolios in which it invests.

7. Transactions in Securities of Affiliated Issuers

The Portfolio does not invest in the Underlying Portfolios for the purpose of exercising control; however, investments by the Portfolio within its principal investment strategies may represent a significant portion of the Underlying Portfolio’s net assets. Transactions in the Underlying Portfolios for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Underlying Portfolio (Class A)	Number of shares held at December 31, 2010		Shares purchased		Shares sold			Number of shares held at December 31, 2011
Baillie Gifford International Stock (formerly Artio International Stock)		27,967,017		3,742,674		(20,242,012	)		11,467,679
BlackRock Bond Income		1,616,190		4,427,182		(580,794	)		5,462,578
BlackRock High Yield		21,451,731		3,370,326		(12,666,479	)		12,155,578
BlackRock Large Cap Value		53,581,535		5,132,294		(29,867,818	)		28,846,011

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

7. Transactions in Securities of Affiliated Issuers - continued

Underlying Portfolio (Class A)	Number of shares held at December 31, 2010		Shares purchased		Shares sold			Number of shares held at December 31, 2011
BlackRock Legacy Large Cap Growth		—		7,538,139		(191,352	)		7,346,787
Clarion Global Real Estate		18,309,619		2,661,917		(598,346	)		20,373,190
Davis Venture Value		14,696,605		1,877,721		(416,713	)		16,157,613
Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value*		14,889,289		1,759,005		(812,813	)		15,835,481
Harris Oakmark International		27,533,824		11,965,001		(1,023,826	)		38,474,999
Invesco Small Cap Growth*		20,756,847		7,517,012		(1,015,998	)		27,257,861
Janus Forty		3,929,111		432,386		(1,359,361	)		3,002,136
Jennison Growth		30,847,710		2,650,512		(17,262,477	)		16,235,745
Lazard Mid Cap		8,423,867		646,867		(9,070,734	)		—
Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth		26,278,270		2,356,487		(3,385,153	)		25,249,604
Lord Abbett Bond Debenture		21,446,534		3,158,672		(16,641,162	)		7,964,044
Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value		549,645		57,558		(51,721	)		555,482
Met/Dimensional International Small Company*		11,855,269		2,825,336		(1,135,006	)		13,545,599
Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate*		17,385,230		3,344,588		(1,247,174	)		19,482,644
Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return		—		21,300,235		(1,086,202	)		20,214,033
Met/Templeton International Bond*		14,602,739		11,748,937		(758,914	)		25,592,762
MFS® Emerging Markets Equity		8,484,266		1,964,237		(625,611	)		9,822,892
MFS® Research International		37,546,861		13,946,597		(1,363,213	)		50,130,245
MFS® Value		37,190,633		4,386,501		(1,048,973	)		40,528,161
Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth		—		1,642,543		(368,023	)		1,274,520
Neuberger Berman Genesis		8,451,799		8,449,970		(529,107	)		16,372,662
PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond		23,334,424		5,599,706		(3,459,942	)		25,474,188
PIMCO Total Return		112,944,392		20,417,915		(33,208,799	)		100,153,508
Pioneer Fund		—		7,286,230		(184,637	)		7,101,593
Rainier Large Cap Equity		46,265,783		4,114,239		(25,719,599	)		24,660,423
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth		—		13,257,024		(332,263	)		12,924,761
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value		12,734,850		6,083,043		(485,153	)		18,332,740
T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth		19,812,105		1,851,814		(2,411,955	)		19,251,964
Third Avenue Small Cap Value		12,981,088		2,071,165		(1,170,296	)		13,881,957
Turner Mid Cap Growth		7,332,050		461,774		(7,793,824	)		—
Van Eck Global Natural Resources		5,928,062		8,182,088		(732,917	)		13,377,233
Van Kampen Comstock		29,204,864		13,277,937		(1,094,040	)		41,388,761
Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities		—		8,424,610		(639,955	)		7,784,655
Western Asset Management U.S. Government		35,709,352		6,622,556		(9,436,200	)		32,895,708

* The Portfolio had ownership of at least 25% of the outstanding voting securities of the Underlying Portfolio as of December 31, 2011. Once filed, the most recent Annual Report of the Underlying Portfolio will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http:// www.sec.gov.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

7. Transactions in Securities of Affiliated Issuers - continued

Underlying Portfolio (Class A)	Net Realized Gain/(Loss) on sales of Underlying Portfolios			Capital Gain Distributions from Underlying Portfolios		Dividend income from Underlying Portfolios		Ending Value as of December 31, 2011
Baillie Gifford International Stock (formerly Artio International Stock)	$	1,839,236		$	—	$	4,962,154	$	90,250,635
BlackRock Bond Income		7,069,842			—		7,659,235		605,799,888
BlackRock High Yield		4,027,341			—		13,260,960		101,499,077
BlackRock Large Cap Value		112,396,467			—		6,799,086		298,844,673
BlackRock Legacy Large Cap Growth		(690,583	)		—		—		183,302,344
Clarion Global Real Estate		(4,815,550	)		—		7,996,770		189,878,127
Davis Venture Value		(929,051	)		—		5,493,435		479,396,367
Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value		(134,194	)		—		1,312,961		189,392,358
Harris Oakmark International		(5,756,155	)		—		107,187		455,928,734
Invesco Small Cap Growth		1,597,142			—		—		383,518,103
Janus Forty		29,165,733			—		5,135,218		191,085,940
Jennison Growth		41,086,412			—		1,118,066		197,101,941
Lazard Mid Cap		27,628,654			—		938,867		—
Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth		1,365,210			—		232,988		197,199,410
Lord Abbett Bond Debenture		18,783,978			—		18,441,221		101,939,768
Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value		2,888,944			—		990,315		99,442,383
Met/Dimensional International Small Company		7,272,565			7,379,317		4,315,970		179,479,194
Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate		323,298			512,785		3,951,251		201,450,539
Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return		(87,938	)		—		—		199,714,651
Met/Templeton International Bond		1,483,464			260,049		14,415,972		295,340,475
MFS® Emerging Markets Equity		3,451,203			—		1,551,088		91,942,265
MFS® Research International		(5,721,195	)		—		8,385,191		452,676,111
MFS® Value		3,168,157			—		7,740,604		495,659,406
Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth		(530,952	)		—		—		13,739,329
Neuberger Berman Genesis		693,943			—		797,795		197,290,572
PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond		3,194,708			14,066,180		5,475,974		303,397,579
PIMCO Total Return		10,482,840			47,559,233		44,208,489		1,215,863,588
Pioneer Fund		(320,546	)		—		—		94,806,267
Rainier Large Cap Equity		3,392,787			—		2,315,264		192,104,694
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth		(474,394	)		—		—		192,191,190
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value		(4,435,695	)		—		2,519,831		384,987,537
T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth		4,746,630			5,273,152		—		183,471,216
Third Avenue Small Cap Value		(668,026	)		—		2,609,175		188,378,152
Turner Mid Cap Growth		43,287,072			—		—		—
Van Eck Global Natural Resources		5,183,275			10,406,451		1,424,658		180,860,197
Van Kampen Comstock		(2,466,967	)		—		3,982,773		385,743,256

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

7. Transactions in Securities of Affiliated Issuers - continued

Underlying Portfolio (Class A)	Net Realized Gain/(Loss) on sales of Underlying Portfolios			Capital Gain Distributions from Underlying Portfolios		Dividend income from Underlying Portfolios		Ending Value as of December 31, 2011
Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities	$	133,816		$	—	$	—	$	101,278,367
Western Asset Management U.S. Government		(2,523,325	)		16,531,991		7,203,224		401,656,595
	$	305,108,146		$	101,989,158	$	185,345,722	$	9,716,610,928

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gains				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$156,435,957	$	160,915,724	$	—	$	—	$	156,435,957	$	160,915,724

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards			Total
$217,251,577	$	—	$	41,833,807	$	(577,502,839	)	$	(318,417,455	)

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses.

As of December 31, 2011, the post-enactment accumulated capital losses were $0 and the pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards and expiration dates were as follows:

Expiring 12/31/2017	Expiring 12/31/2018		Total
$520,299,065	$	57,203,774	$	577,502,839

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements - continued

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the transfer agent. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 28, 2012

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹ As the Adviser has the day-to-day responsibility for managing the MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio’s investments, the Board only approved an Advisory Agreement with respect to the MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio.

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the Board noted that the Adviser has hired, at its own cost, an independent consultant to provide research and consulting services with respect to the periodic asset allocation targets for each of the Asset Allocation Portfolios and to investments in other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. (the “Underlying Portfolios”), which may assist the Adviser with the selection of Underlying Portfolios for inclusion in each Asset Allocation Portfolio. Additionally, the Board considered that an Investment Committee, consisting of investment professionals from across MetLife, meets at least quarterly to review the asset allocations and discuss the performance of the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds and the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio.

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe for the three- year period ended June 30, 2011 and underperformed the median of its Performance Universe for the one- and five-year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board also noted that the Portfolio outperformed its Lipper Index for the one- and three- year periods ended June 30, 2011, and underperformed its Lipper Index for the five- year period ended June 30, 2011. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Dow Jones Moderate Index, for the one-, three- and five- year periods ended September 30, 2011. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance, including the peer group used for comparative purposes. The Board noted that Wilshire Associates, an independent consultant previously hired by the Adviser,

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

provides research and consulting services with respect to the Portfolio’s allocation targets and investments in Underlying Portfolios. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s performance was being reasonably addressed and/or monitored.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees were equal to the Expense Group median and below the Expense Universe median, and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below Expense Group median and Expense Universe median. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory fee is consistent with industry norms and is fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the Underlying Portfolios in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

With respect to the MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board further considered that the Portfolio’s management fees were below the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

In addition, the Board reviewed the advisory fee to be paid to the Adviser for each of the Asset Allocation Portfolios. The Board concluded that the advisory fee to be paid to the Adviser with respect to each Asset Allocation Portfolio is based on services to be provided that are in addition to, rather than duplicative of, the services provided pursuant to the advisory agreements for the Underlying Portfolios of the Asset Allocation Portfolios and that the additional services are necessary because of the differences between the investment policies, strategies and techniques of the Asset Allocation Portfolios and those of their Underlying Portfolios.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

24

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio

Managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A and B shares of the MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio returned 1.99% and 1.77%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Dow Jones Moderately Conservative Index¹, returned 2.82%.

Market Environment/Conditions

Economic and political unrest around the world caused sudden and often sharp shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. As a result, riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit based bonds were extremely volatile throughout the year. Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates. Below investment grade bonds experienced a sharp sell-off during the third quarter as investors feared that the European credit crisis might spread and derail the already fragile global economic recovery, but high yield bonds recovered fully in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a tepid, but respectable 5.0% total return. Foreign bonds had similar returns as domestic bonds; although differences in exchange rates produced variations in the returns of bonds from different countries.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to concerns about the economy and global events. After producing a modest return of 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the full year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Smaller domestic stocks, as measured by the Russell 2000 Index, were down 4.2% for the year. Growth style stocks performed modestly better than value style stocks. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis. Stocks in Europe were hurt by both a drop in prices and a stronger dollar, which made these stocks less valuable to the dollar based investors.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

The MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio invested in underlying portfolios of the Met Investors Series Trust and the Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. to maintain its broad asset allocation goal of 65% to fixed income and 35% to equities. The tilt toward bonds during a period of uncertainty dampened the volatility and reduced the downside compared to a portfolio with higher exposure to equities. However, a higher than benchmark exposure to high yield and foreign bonds—both of which boosted relative performance in 2010—detracted from relative performance in 2011 as these asset classes trailed domestic investment grade bonds. The overweighting was a result of the opportunistic investment in these asset classes by several of the core bond portfolios. In addition, weak selection and sector positioning within several of the underlying portfolios hurt relative performance.

Among the Portfolio’s domestic equity portfolios, the BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio, the Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio, and the Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio contributed the most to relative performance. BlackRock—which struggled during 2009 and 2010—benefited in 2011 from an overweight and good selection in the Health Care sector. Among the stocks that contributed were Biogen Idec, Humana, and UnitedHealth Group. Neuberger Berman’s good return was driven mostly by its strong stock selection. Among the stocks contributing to performance were Tractor Supply, a retail store that caters to recreational farmers and ranchers, and Polaris Industries, a manufacturer of sports vehicles. Artisan’s return was boosted by owning stocks such as H&R Block, Fidelity National Financial, and Arch Capital Group.

The BlackRock Legacy Large Cap Growth Portfolio and the Davis Venture Value Portfolio were the biggest detractors from relative performance among the domestic equity portfolios. BlackRock Legacy was hurt by overall weak security selection, especially in the Energy and Health Care sectors. Oil service giant Schlumberger and biotech firm Dendreon were among the biggest detractors. Davis detracted from relative performance due in part to owning Sino-Forest, a Chinese forest plantation operator that lost nearly all of its value amid fraud allegations. Weak selection in the Energy sector also detracted from performance.

Within the core foreign equity funds, the Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio (subadvised by Artio Global Management, LLC during 2011) detracted from relative performance due in part to its exposure to stocks in emerging market countries such as China and India. It was also hurt by stock selection in the Financial Services sector in Asia (Hang Lung Properties) and Europe (Lloyds Banking Group). The Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio, the MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio’s single best performing underlying portfolio in 2010, lagged the broad global equity indices in 2011 due to its inclusion of economically sensitive industrial materials stocks. On the plus side, the MFS^® Research International Portfolio helped relative performance due to very good overall stock selection. Australian mining company (Iluka Resources) was a particular strong source of good performance.

For fixed income managers to do well in 2011, they needed to hold higher quality instruments—preferably Treasuries—and hold bonds with longer maturities. The PIMCO Total Return Portfolio, although positive for the year, significantly underperformed the broad bond benchmarks due to its shorter duration, underweight to Treasuries, and lower average credit quality. The Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio’s impact on performance was mixed through the year: it helped performance for three out of four quarters due to its avoidance of troubled European sovereigns, most notably Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain, but its significant relative underperformance during the third quarter overwhelmed the otherwise good performance. During the third quarter, Met/Templeton’s underweight to core foreign countries such as Japan, the United Kingdom, and Germany, as well as currency positioning, detracted from performance. The biggest fixed income contributor to relative performance was the PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio. Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) did well as investors sought the safety of U.S. Treasury securities in times of stress.

Investment Committee

MetLife Advisers, LLC

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio

Managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio and market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are as December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions. MetLife Advisers undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statements) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation, or country diversification (or that of the underlying portfolios used in the Portfolio) is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
PIMCO Total Return Portfolio (Class A)		22.3
BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio (Class A)		11.2
Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio (Class A)		10.2
PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio (Class A)		8.2
Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio (Class A)		4.0
MFS® Value Portfolio (Class A)		3.9
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)		3.0
Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio (Class A)		3.0
Pioneer Fund Portfolio (Class A)		2.9
Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio (Class A)		2.9

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio

MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio managed by

MetLife Advisers, LLC vs. Dow Jones Moderately Conservative Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		5 Year		Since Inception3
MetLife Defensive Strategy
Portfolio—Class A		1.99%		3.38%		4.78%
Class B		1.77%		3.12%		4.18%
Dow Jones Moderately Conservative Index1		2.82%		4.06%		5.18%

The performance of Class B shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other class because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹ The Dow Jones Moderately Conservative Index is a total returns index designed to provide asset allocation strategists with a target risk benchmark. Each month, the index adjusts its weighting of stocks, bonds, and cash indices (both domestic and foreign) from Barclays and Dow Jones such that the risk of that combination will have 40% of the risk of an all equity portfolio.

²“Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

³Inception of the Class B shares is 11/4/2004. Inception of the Class A shares is 5/2/2005. Index returns are based on an inception date of 11/4/2004.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A(a)
Actual		0.37%	$	1,000.00	$	978.30	$	1.84
Hypothetical*		0.37%		1,000.00		1,023.33		1.89
Class B(a)
Actual		0.62%	$	1,000.00	$	976.40	$	3.09
Hypothetical*		0.62%		1,000.00		1,022.07		3.16

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

(a) The annualized expense ratio reflects the expenses of both the Portfolio and the Underlying Portfolios in which it invests.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Mutual Funds—100.0% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Affiliated Investment Companies—100.0%
Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio (formerly Artio International Stock Portfolio) (Class A) (b)		3,379,847	$	26,599,397
BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio (Class A) (b)		2,857,891		316,940,158
BlackRock High Yield Portfolio (Class A) (a)		6,718,993		56,103,593
BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio (Class A) (b)		5,405,542		56,001,416
BlackRock Legacy Large Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A) (b)		2,168,160		54,095,599
Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio (Class A) (a)		2,961,336		27,599,654
Davis Venture Value Portfolio (Class A) (b)		1,864,667		55,324,665
Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio (Class A) (a)		2,302,401		27,536,718
Harris Oakmark International Portfolio (Class A) (a)		4,550,784		53,926,789
Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A)* (a)		1,954,713		27,502,812
Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio (Class A) (a)		2,255,520		28,870,651
Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio (Class A) (b)		155,241		27,791,189
Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio (Class A) (a)		5,491,670		56,783,868
Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio (Class A)* (a)		11,338,368		112,023,080
Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio (Class A) (a)		7,134,263		82,329,391
MFS® Research International Portfolio (Class A) (a)		8,946,983		80,791,260
MFS® Value Portfolio (Class A) (b)		9,089,463		111,164,135
Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio (Class A) (b)		4,581,746		55,210,044
PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio (Class A) (a)		19,375,099		230,757,426
PIMCO Total Return Portfolio (Class A) (a)		51,836,367		629,293,498
Pioneer Fund Portfolio (Class A) (a)		6,197,920		82,742,233
Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio (Class A) (a)		3,490,375		27,190,022
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A) (b)		1,833,073		27,257,795
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio (Class A) (a)		4,003,778		84,079,328
Affiliated Investment Companies—(Continued)
Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio (Class A) (a)		2,006,108	$	27,222,878
Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio (Class A) (b)		1,929,115		26,081,640
Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio (Class A) (a)		8,945,775		83,374,623
Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio (Class A) (b)		4,438,211		57,741,118
Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio (Class A) (b)		23,460,455		286,452,150
Total Mutual Funds (Cost $2,681,823,148)				2,818,787,130
Total Investments—100.0% (Cost $2,681,823,148#)				2,818,787,130
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—0.0%				(792,021	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	2,817,995,109

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $2,732,505,180. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $112,625,484 and $(26,343,534), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $86,281,950 for federal income tax purposes.

(a) A Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust. (See Note 7 to Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in the investments of affiliated issuers.)

(b) A Portfolio of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. (See Note 7 to Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in the investments of affiliated issuers.)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Mutual Funds
Affiliated Investment Companies	$	2,818,787,130	$	—	$	—	$	2,818,787,130
Total Investments	$	2,818,787,130	$	—	$	—	$	2,818,787,130

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Affiliated investments at value (a)	$	2,818,787,130
Receivable for investments sold		946,278
Receivable for shares sold		280,870
Total assets		2,820,014,278
Liabilities
Payables for:
Shares redeemed		1,227,148
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		150,433
Distribution and service fees - Class B		592,905
Administration fees		2,000
Custodian and accounting fees		2,067
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		19,549
Total liabilities		2,019,169
Net Assets	$	2,817,995,109
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	2,625,063,949
Accumulated net realized loss		(25,778,864	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments		136,963,982
Undistributed net investment income		81,746,042
Net Assets	$	2,817,995,109
Net Assets
Class A	$	77,308
Class B		2,817,917,801
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		7,139
Class B		261,914,380
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	10.83
Class B		10.76

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of affiliated investments was $2,681,823,148.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios	$	59,388,612
Total investment income		59,388,612
Expenses
Management fees		1,690,402
Administration fees		24,000
Custodian and accounting fees		24,800
Distribution and service fees - Class B		6,576,831
Audit and tax services		24,536
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Miscellaneous		6,184
Total expenses		8,415,463
Net investment income		50,973,149
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Affiliated Investments
Net realized gain on:
Affiliated Investments		111,491,871
Capital gain distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		41,260,030
Net realized gain on affiliated investments and capital gain distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		152,751,901
Net change in unrealized depreciation on affiliated investments		(157,819,415	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on affiliated investments		(5,067,514	)
Net Increase in Net Assets from Operations	$	45,905,635

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	50,973,149		$	50,513,998
Net realized gain on affiliated investments and capital gain distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		152,751,901			46,017,688
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on affiliated investments		(157,819,415	)		145,008,959
Net increase in net assets resulting from operations		45,905,635			241,540,645
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(1,794	)		(2,077	)
Class B		(58,355,148	)		(67,872,917	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(58,356,942	)		(67,874,994	)
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		283,496,017			468,859,870
Net Increase in Net Assets		271,044,710			642,525,521
Net assets at beginning of period		2,546,950,399			1,904,424,878
Net assets at end of period	$	2,817,995,109		$	2,546,950,399
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	81,746,042		$	58,340,507

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		727		$	7,861			1,277		$	13,626
Reinvestments		163			1,794			201			2,077
Redemptions		(157	)		(1,712	)		(719	)		(7,526	)
Net increase		733		$	7,943			759		$	8,177
Class B
Sales		69,736,934		$	753,355,603			81,497,575		$	832,213,029
Reinvestments		5,309,840			58,355,148			6,608,853			67,872,917
Redemptions		(48,511,169	)		(528,222,677	)		(41,456,008	)		(431,234,253	)
Net increase		26,535,605		$	283,488,074			46,650,420		$	468,851,693
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	283,496,017					$	468,859,870

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.89		$	10.14		$	8.68		$	11.28		$	11.10
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.25			0.29			0.50			0.27			0.23
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.03	)		0.83			1.41			(2.51	)		0.46
Total from investment operations		0.22			1.12			1.91			(2.24	)		0.69
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.28	)		(0.37	)		(0.29	)		(0.16	)		(0.25	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			(0.16	)		(0.20	)		(0.26	)
Total distributions		(0.28	)		(0.37	)		(0.45	)		(0.36	)		(0.51	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.83		$	10.89		$	10.14		$	8.68		$	11.28
Total Return (%)		1.99			11.25			23.24			(20.48	)		6.20
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)(b)(c)		0.07			0.08			0.10			0.09			0.09
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)(d)		0.07			0.08			0.10			0.09			0.09
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)(e)		2.32			2.75			5.53			2.74			2.05
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		29.8			18.7			28.1			29.5			39.2
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	0.1		$	0.1		$	0.1		$	—	+	$	—	+
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.82		$	10.09		$	8.65		$	11.25		$	11.09
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.21			0.24			0.37			0.29			0.19
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.01	)		0.84			1.51			(2.55	)		0.46
Total from investment operations		0.20			1.08			1.88			(2.26	)		0.65
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.26	)		(0.35	)		(0.28	)		(0.14	)		(0.23	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			(0.16	)		(0.20	)		(0.26	)
Total distributions		(0.26	)		(0.35	)		(0.44	)		(0.34	)		(0.49	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.76		$	10.82		$	10.09		$	8.65		$	11.25
Total Return (%)		1.77			10.90			22.91			(20.65	)		5.92
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)(b)(c)		0.32			0.33			0.35			0.35			0.36
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)(d)		0.32			0.33			0.35			0.35			0.35
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)(e)		1.94			2.29			3.99			2.93			1.72
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		29.8			18.7			28.1			29.5			39.2
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	2,817.9		$	2,546.9		$	1,904.4		$	1,143.4		$	809.5

+ Net Assets less than 1/10 of $1 million.

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) See Note 3 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

(c) The ratio of operating expenses to average net assets does not include expenses of the Underlying Portfolios in which the Portfolio invests.

(d) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

(e) Recognition of net investment income by the Portfolio is affected by the timing of the declaration of dividends by the Underlying Portfolios in which it invests.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A and B Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

The Portfolio is designed on established principles of asset allocation to achieve a specific risk profile. The Portfolio will invest substantially all of its assets in other portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. (“Underlying Portfolios”).

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Valuation - Investments in the Underlying Portfolios are valued at their closing daily net asset value. The net asset value of the Portfolio is calculated based on the net asset values of the Underlying Portfolios in which the Portfolio invests. For information about the use of fair value pricing by the Underlying Portfolios, please refer to the prospectuses of the Underlying Portfolios.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - The Portfolio’s security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date. Interest income is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Capital gains distributions received from the Underlying Portfolios are recorded as net realized gain in the Statement of Operations.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to short-term capital gain distributions received from Underlying Portfolios, deferred trustees’ compensation, capital loss carryforwards and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$1,690,402		0.100	%	First $500 Million
		0.075	%	$500 Million to $1 Billion
		0.050	%	Over $1 Billion

In addition to the above management fee paid to the Adviser, the Portfolio indirectly pays MetLife Advisers a management fee through its investments in the Underlying Portfolios.

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Expense Limitation Agreement - The Adviser had entered into an expense limitation agreement with the Trust (“Expense Limitation Agreement”) in the interest of limiting expenses of the Portfolio. The Expense Limitation Agreement continued in effect with respect to the Portfolio until April 30, 2011. Pursuant to that Expense Limitation Agreement, the Adviser had agreed to waive or limit its fees and to assume other expenses so that the total annual operating expenses of the Portfolio other than interest, taxes, brokerage commissions, other expenditures which are capitalized or expensed in accordance with GAAP, other extraordinary expenses not incurred in the ordinary course of the Portfolio’s business, and Underlying Portfolios’ fees and expenses but including amounts payable pursuant to a plan adopted in accordance with Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act, were limited to the following expense ratios as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets:

Maximum Expense Ratio under current         Expense Limitation Agreement
Class A	Class B
0.10%		0.35	%

If in any year in which the Management Agreement is still in effect, the estimated aggregate operating expenses of the Portfolio for the fiscal year are less than the Maximum Expense Ratios for that year, subject to approval by the Trust’s Board, the Adviser shall be entitled to reimbursement by the Portfolio to the extent that the charge does not cause the expenses in such subsequent year to exceed the Maximum Expense Ratio as stated above. The Portfolio is not obligated to repay any expense paid by the Adviser more than five years after the end of the fiscal year in which such expense was incurred.

Effective May 1, 2011, there was no longer an expense cap for the Portfolio.

Distribution Agreement and Plan - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A and Class B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B distribution plan provides that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B Shares. However, under the Class B distribution agreement, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B distribution plan are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B distribution plan and distribution agreement, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of the Underlying Portfolios by the Portfolio, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases		Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government	U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government
$—	$1,106,634,672	$—	$789,185,514

5. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Underlying Portfolios invest in securities and enter into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Underlying Portfolios may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Underlying Portfolios; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Underlying Portfolios may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Underlying Portfolios have unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Underlying Portfolios to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Underlying Portfolios restrict their exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom they undertake a significant volume of transactions. The Underlying Portfolios reduce the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into master netting arrangements to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Underlying Portfolios’ overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio and in the Underlying Portfolios in which it invests.

7. Transactions in Securities of Affiliated Issuers

The Portfolio does not invest in the Underlying Portfolios for the purpose of exercising control; however, investments by the Portfolio within its principal investment strategies may represent a significant portion of the Underlying Portfolio’s net assets. Transactions in the Underlying Portfolios for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Underlying Portfolio (Class A)	Number of shares held at December 31, 2010		Shares purchased		Shares sold			Number of shares held at December 31, 2011
Baillie Gifford International Stock (formerly Artio International Stock)		5,208,437		1,120,730		(2,949,320	)		3,379,847
BlackRock Bond Income		1,593,282		1,535,197		(270,588	)		2,857,891
BlackRock High Yield		5,954,809		1,434,345		(670,161	)		6,718,993
BlackRock Large Cap Value		10,105,722		1,143,674		(5,843,854	)		5,405,542
BlackRock Legacy Large Cap Growth		—		2,211,981		(43,821	)		2,168,160
Clarion Global Real Estate		2,592,182		696,517		(327,363	)		2,961,336
Davis Venture Value		2,497,839		401,312		(1,034,484	)		1,864,667
Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value		2,120,742		502,019		(320,360	)		2,302,401
Harris Oakmark International		3,833,039		1,167,099		(449,354	)		4,550,784

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

7. Transactions in Securities of Affiliated Issuers - continued

Underlying Portfolio (Class A)	Number of shares held at December 31, 2010		Shares purchased		Shares sold			Number of shares held at December 31, 2011
Invesco Small Cap Growth		1,964,748		427,868		(437,903	)		1,954,713
Jennison Growth		6,582,715		150,457		(6,733,172	)		—
Lazard Mid Cap		2,369,888		65,918		(2,435,806	)		—
Lord Abbett Bond Debenture		11,890,231		1,264,136		(10,898,847	)		2,255,520
Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value		153,553		27,662		(25,974	)		155,241
Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate		7,240,669		1,089,121		(2,838,120	)		5,491,670
Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return		—		11,690,446		(352,078	)		11,338,368
Met/Templeton International Bond		4,061,075		3,495,603		(422,415	)		7,134,263
MFS® Research International		5,258,971		4,284,556		(596,544	)		8,946,983
MFS® Value		8,413,823		1,718,066		(1,042,426	)		9,089,463
Neuberger Berman Genesis		2,378,220		2,487,916		(284,390	)		4,581,746
PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond		19,695,264		4,502,051		(4,822,216	)		19,375,099
PIMCO Total Return		47,763,597		11,142,609		(7,069,839	)		51,836,367
Pioneer Fund		—		6,324,860		(126,940	)		6,197,920
Rainier Large Cap Equity		6,592,008		750,475		(3,852,108	)		3,490,375
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth		—		1,873,255		(40,182	)		1,833,073
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value		2,405,409		1,827,647		(229,278	)		4,003,778
Third Avenue Small Cap Value		1,840,522		493,453		(327,867	)		2,006,108
Van Eck Global Natural Resources		1,687,397		700,858		(459,140	)		1,929,115
Van Kampen Comstock		8,218,040		1,796,694		(1,068,959	)		8,945,775
Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities		—		4,615,451		(177,240	)		4,438,211
Western Asset Management U.S. Government		24,174,615		5,141,470		(5,855,630	)		23,460,455

Underlying Portfolio (Class A)	Net Realized Gain/(Loss) on sales of Underlying Portfolios			Capital Gain Distributions from Underlying Portfolios		Dividend income from Underlying Portfolios		Ending Value as of December 31, 2011
Baillie Gifford International Stock (formerly Artio International Stock)	$	3,557,585		$	—	$	832,619	$	26,599,397
BlackRock Bond Income		3,226,283			—		6,689,066		316,940,158
BlackRock High Yield		812,471			—		3,324,823		56,103,593
BlackRock Large Cap Value		21,421,122			—		1,159,006		56,001,416
BlackRock Legacy Large Cap Growth		(127,094	)		—		—		54,095,599
Clarion Global Real Estate		1,264,255			—		1,020,252		27,599,654
Davis Venture Value		9,038,309			—		842,391		55,324,665
Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value		1,861,518			—		163,297		27,536,718
Harris Oakmark International		1,034,099			—		13,307		53,926,789
Invesco Small Cap Growth		2,829,095			—		—		27,502,812
Jennison Growth		16,583,851			—		215,025		—

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

7. Transactions in Securities of Affiliated Issuers - continued

Underlying Portfolio (Class A)	Net Realized Gain/(Loss) on sales of Underlying Portfolios			Capital Gain Distributions from Underlying Portfolios		Dividend income from Underlying Portfolios		Ending Value as of December 31, 2011
Lazard Mid Cap	$	10,655,880		$	—	$	232,937	$	—
Lord Abbett Bond Debenture		20,794,407			—		9,221,918		28,870,651
Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value		1,801,073			—		249,958		27,791,189
Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate		943,910			192,771		1,485,390		56,783,868
Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return		(21,456	)		—		—		112,023,080
Met/Templeton International Bond		982,755			65,338		3,622,056		82,329,391
MFS® Research International		(746,334	)		—		1,039,026		80,791,260
MFS® Value		4,100,565			—		1,581,077		111,164,135
Neuberger Berman Genesis		433,580			—		199,013		55,210,044
PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond		1,058,497			10,624,654		4,136,185		230,757,426
PIMCO Total Return		(2,128,305	)		17,911,544		16,649,602		629,293,498
Pioneer Fund		(175,041	)		—		—		82,742,233
Rainier Large Cap Equity		6,268,229			—		293,733		27,190,022
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth		(37,440	)		—		—		27,257,795
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value		1,689,783			—		428,190		84,079,328
Third Avenue Small Cap Value		1,624,397			—		325,921		27,222,878
Van Eck Global Natural Resources		3,644,939			2,601,419		356,138		26,081,640
Van Kampen Comstock		2,040,616			—		1,009,664		83,374,623
Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities		37,053			—		—		57,741,118
Western Asset Management U.S. Government		(2,976,731	)		9,864,304		4,298,018		286,452,150
	$	111,491,871		$	41,260,030	$	59,388,612	$	2,818,787,130

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gains			Total
2011	2010		2011		2010	2011		2010
$58,356,942	$	67,874,994	$	—	$	$	58,356,942	$	67,874,994

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain	Net Unrealized Appreciation	Loss Carryforwards	Total
$81,771,109	$24,903,168	$86,281,950	$—	$192,956,227

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses. At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not have any capital loss carryforwards.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the transfer agent. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 28, 2012

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹ As the Adviser has the day-to-day responsibility for managing the MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio’s investments, the Board only approved an Advisory Agreement with respect to the MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio.

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the Board noted that the Adviser has hired, at its own cost, an independent consultant to provide research and consulting services with respect to the periodic asset allocation targets for each of the Asset Allocation Portfolios and to investments in other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. (the “Underlying Portfolios”), which may assist the Adviser with the selection of Underlying Portfolios for inclusion in each Asset Allocation Portfolio. Additionally, the Board considered that an Investment Committee, consisting of investment professionals from across MetLife, meets at least quarterly to review the asset allocations and discuss the performance of the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds and the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio.

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and Lipper Index for the one-, three- and five- year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Dow Jones Moderately Conservative Index, for the one-, three- and five- year periods ended September 30, 2011. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance, including relative to its benchmark. The Board noted that Wilshire Associates, an independent consultant previously hired by the Adviser, provides research and consulting services with respect to the Portfolio’s allocation targets and investments in Underlying Portfolios. The Board concluded that the Portfolio’s overall performance is satisfactory.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees were above the median of the Expense Group and below the median of the Expense Universe, and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the median of the Expense Group and the Expense Universe. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s expenses. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory fee is consistent with industry norms and is fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the Underlying Portfolios in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

With respect to the MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s management fees are below the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

In addition, the Board reviewed the advisory fee to be paid to the Adviser for each of the Asset Allocation Portfolios. The Board concluded that the advisory fee to be paid to the Adviser with respect to each Asset Allocation Portfolio is based on services to be provided that are in addition to, rather than duplicative of, the services provided pursuant to the advisory agreements for the Underlying Portfolios of the Asset Allocation Portfolios and that the additional services are necessary because of the differences between the investment policies, strategies and techniques of the Asset Allocation Portfolios and those of their Underlying Portfolios.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

23

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio

Managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A and B shares of the MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio returned -3.64% and -3.87%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Dow Jones Moderately Aggressive Index¹, returned -2.63%.

Market Environment/Conditions

Economic and political unrest around the world caused sudden and often sharp shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. As a result, riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit based bonds were extremely volatile throughout the year. Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates. Below investment grade bonds experienced a sharp sell-off during the third quarter as investors feared that the European credit crisis might spread and derail the already fragile global economic recovery, but high yield bonds recovered fully in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a tepid, but respectable 5.0% total return. Foreign bonds had similar returns as domestic bonds; although differences in exchange rates produced variations in the returns of bonds from different countries.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to concerns about the economy and global events. After producing a modest return of 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the full year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Smaller domestic stocks, as measured by the Russell 2000 Index, were down 4.2% for the year. Growth style stocks performed modestly better than value style stocks. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis. Stocks in Europe were hurt by both a drop in prices and a stronger dollar, which made these stocks less valuable to the dollar based investors.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

The MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio invested in the underlying portfolios of the Met Investors Series Trust and the Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. to maintain its broad asset allocation goal of 15% to fixed income and 85% to equities. The investment in smaller and foreign stocks by underlying portfolios that invest mostly in large domestic stocks had a net negative impact on performance for the year. In addition, weak selection and sector positioning within several of the underlying portfolios hurt relative performance.

Among the Portfolio’s domestic equity portfolios, the BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio, the Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio, and the Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio contributed the most to relative performance. BlackRock—which struggled during 2009 and 2010—benefited in 2011 from good stock selection and sector weighting in the Health Care sector. Among the stocks that contributed were Biogen Idec, Humana, and UnitedHealth Group. Neuberger Berman’s good return was driven mostly by its strong stock selection. Among the stocks contributing to performance were Tractor Supply, a retail store that caters to recreational farmers and ranchers, and Polaris Industries, a manufacturer of sports vehicles. Legg Mason ClearBridge’s performance was aided by an overweight position and strong selection in the Health Care sector. Their strong performing Health Care stocks included Biogen Idec Inc., UnitedHealth Group Inc., Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc., and Amgen Inc.

The BlackRock Legacy Large Cap Growth Portfolio and the Davis Venture Value Portfolio were the biggest detractors from relative performance among the domestic equity portfolios. BlackRock Legacy was hurt by overall weak security selection, especially in the Energy and Health Care sectors. Oil service giant Schlumberger and biotech firm Dendreon were among the biggest detractors. Davis detracted from relative performance due in part to owning Sino-Forest, a Chinese forest plantation operator that lost nearly all of its value amid fraud allegations. Weak selection in the Energy sector also detracted from performance.

Within the core foreign equity funds, the Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio (subadvised by Artio Global Management, LLC during 2011) detracted from relative performance due in part to exposure to stocks in emerging market countries such as China and India. It was also hurt by stock selection in the Financial Services sector in Asia (Hang Lung Properties) and Europe (Lloyds Banking Group). The Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio, the MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio’s single best performing underlying portfolio in 2010, lagged the broad global equity indices in 2011 due to its inclusion of economically sensitive industrial materials stocks. On the plus side, the MFS^® Research International Portfolio helped relative performance due to very good overall stock selection. Australian mining company (Iluka Resources) was a particular strong source of good performance.

For fixed income managers to do well in 2011, they needed to hold higher quality instruments—preferably Treasuries—and hold bonds with longer maturities. The PIMCO Total Return Portfolio, although positive for the year, significantly underperformed the broad bond benchmarks due to its shorter duration, underweight to Treasuries, and lower average credit quality. The Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio’s impact on performance was mixed through the year: it helped performance for three out of four quarters due to its avoidance of troubled European sovereigns, most notably Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain, but its significant relative underperformance during the third quarter overwhelmed the otherwise good performance. During the third quarter, Met/Templeton’s underweight to core foreign countries such as Japan, the United Kingdom, and Germany, as well as currency positioning, detracted from performance. The biggest fixed income contributor to relative performance was the PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio. Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) did well as investors sought the safety of U.S. Treasury securities in times of stress.

Investment Committee

MetLife Advisers, LLC

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio

Managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio and market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are as December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions. MetLife Advisers undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statements) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation, or country diversification (or that of the underlying portfolios used in the Portfolio) is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
MFS® Value Portfolio (Class A)		6.2
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)		6.1
Harris Oakmark International Portfolio (Class A)		5.6
PIMCO Total Return Portfolio (Class A)		5.2
Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio (Class A)		5.1
Davis Venture Value Portfolio (Class A)		5.1
MFS® Research International Portfolio (Class A)		4.7
Jennison Growth Portfolio (Class A)		4.1
BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)		3.1
Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio (Class A)		3.1

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio

MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio managed by

MetLife Advisers, LLC vs. Dow Jones Moderately Aggressive Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		5 Year		Since Inception3
MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio—Class A		-3.64%		-0.98%		3.14%
Class B		-3.87%		-1.24%		3.03%
Dow Jones Moderately Aggressive Index1		-2.63%		1.54%		5.50%

The performance of Class B shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other class because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹ The Dow Jones Moderately Aggressive Index is a total returns index designed to provide asset allocation strategists with a target risk benchmark. Each month, the index adjusts its weightings of stocks, bonds, and cash indices (both domestic and foreign) from Barclays and Dow Jones such that the risk of that combination will have 80% of the risk of an all equity portfolio.

²“Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

³Inception of the Class B shares is 11/4/2004. Inception of the Class A shares is 5/2/2005. Index returns are based on an inception date of 11/4/2004.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A(a)
Actual		0.45%	$	1,000.00	$	910.80	$	2.17
Hypothetical*		0.45%		1,000.00		1,022.93		2.29
Class B(a)
Actual		0.70%	$	1,000.00	$	909.60	$	3.37
Hypothetical*		0.70%		1,000.00		1,021.67		3.57

*   Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

**  Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

(a) The annualized expense ratio reflects the expenses of both the Portfolio and the Underlying Portfolios in which it invests.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Mutual Funds—100.0% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Affiliated Investment Companies—100.0%
Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio (formerly Artio International Stock Portfolio) (Class A)(b)		15,889,994	$	125,054,254
BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio (Class A)(b)		626,844		69,517,024
BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)(b)		20,296,345		210,270,136
BlackRock Legacy Large Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A)(b)		7,725,793		192,758,526
Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio (Class A)(a)		21,827,476		203,432,076
Davis Venture Value Portfolio (Class A)(b)		11,547,663		342,619,163
Dreman Small Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)(a)		10,235,302		134,491,863
Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)(a)		5,719,855		68,409,467
Harris Oakmark International Portfolio (Class A)(a)		31,990,365		379,085,819
Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A)* (a)		14,278,043		200,892,071
Janus Forty Portfolio (Class A)(a)		3,175,884		202,145,040
Jennison Growth Portfolio (Class A)(b)		22,537,780		273,608,654
Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio (Class A)(a)		26,770,511		209,077,691
Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A)* (b)		13,428,225		134,416,533
Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio (Class A)(a)		10,956,632		140,244,893
Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)(b)		780,044		139,643,416
Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio (Class A)(b)		14,071,519		186,447,630
Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio (Class A)(a)		13,414,948		138,710,560
Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio (Class A)(a)		11,879,712		137,091,879
MFS® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio (Class A)(a)		13,611,779		127,406,249
MFS® Research International Portfolio (Class A)(a)		35,251,341		318,319,606
MFS® Value Portfolio (Class A)(b)		34,252,328		418,905,971
Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A)(a)		1,161,556		12,521,569
Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio (Class A)(b)		5,834,105		70,300,966
Affiliated Investment Companies—(Continued)
PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio (Class A)(a)		17,516,666	$	208,623,489
PIMCO Total Return Portfolio (Class A)(a)		28,727,775		348,755,185
Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio (Class A)(a)		26,221,502		204,265,503
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A)(b)		13,780,001		204,908,620
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)(a)		19,586,987		411,326,728
T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A)(a)		13,208,804		125,879,901
Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)(a)		9,621,850		130,568,510
Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A)* (a)		9,843,891		125,706,482
Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio (Class A)(b)		13,900,705		187,937,525
Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio (Class A)(a)		36,966,368		344,526,553
Total Mutual Funds (Cost $6,396,647,932)				6,727,869,552
Total Investments—100.0% (Cost $6,396,647,932#)				6,727,869,552
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—0.0%				(1,795,448	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	6,726,074,104

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $6,688,356,120. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $259,082,774 and $(219,569,342), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $39,513,432 for federal income tax purposes.

(a) A Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust. (See Note 7 to Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in the investments of affiliated issuers.)

(b) A Portfolio of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. (See Note 7 to Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in the investments of affiliated issuers.)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Mutual Funds
Affiliated Investment Companies	$	6,727,869,552	$	—	$	—	$	6,727,869,552
Total Investments	$	6,727,869,552	$	—	$	—	$	6,727,869,552

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Affiliated investments at value (a)	$	6,727,869,552
Receivable for investments sold		815,805
Receivable for shares sold		320,958
Total assets		6,729,006,315
Liabilities
Due to Adviser		1,223
Payables for:
Shares redeemed		1,136,763
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		317,282
Distribution and service fees - Class B		1,426,614
Administration fees		2,000
Custodian and accounting fees		2,067
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		21,195
Total liabilities		2,932,211
Net Assets	$	6,726,074,104
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	7,855,804,697
Accumulated net realized loss		(1,577,021,144	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments		331,221,620
Undistributed net investment income		116,068,931
Net Assets	$	6,726,074,104
Net Assets
Class A	$	2,593,039
Class B		6,723,481,065
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		258,978
Class B		674,926,995
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	10.01
Class B		9.96

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of affiliated investments was $6,396,647,932.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios	$	109,518,035
Total investment income		109,518,035
Expenses
Management fees		4,051,901
Administration fees		24,000
Deferred expense reimbursement		14,673
Custodian and accounting fees		24,800
Distribution and service fees - Class B		18,377,682
Audit and tax services		24,536
Legal		33,757
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Miscellaneous		14,425
Total expenses		22,601,198
Net investment income		86,916,837
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Affiliated Investments
Net realized gain on:
Affiliated investments		133,836,744
Capital gain distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		56,454,968
Net realized gain on affiliated investments and capital gain distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		190,291,712
Net change in unrealized depreciation on affiliated investments		(551,810,654	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on affiliated investments		(361,518,942	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(274,602,105	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	86,916,837		$	91,298,583
Net realized gain (loss) on affiliated investments and capital gain distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		190,291,712			(144,638,619	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on affiliated investments		(551,810,654	)		1,064,817,436
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations		(274,602,105	)		1,011,477,400
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(46,874	)		(47,063	)
Class B		(112,889,777	)		(118,844,419	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(112,936,651	)		(118,891,482	)
Net decrease in net assets from capital share transactions		(435,271,289	)		(261,617,477	)
Net Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets		(822,810,045	)		630,968,441
Net assets at beginning of period		7,548,884,149			6,917,915,708
Net assets at end of period	$	6,726,074,104		$	7,548,884,149
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	116,068,931		$	112,916,943

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		10,057		$	103,193			17,028		$	159,756
Reinvestments		4,242			46,874			4,802			47,063
Redemptions		(17,812	)		(186,870	)		(67,928	)		(617,942	)
Net decrease		(3,513	)	$	(36,803	)		(46,098	)	$	(411,123	)
Class B
Sales		28,882,313		$	306,934,923			30,673,033		$	294,705,075
Reinvestments		10,244,082			112,889,777			12,151,781			118,844,419
Redemptions		(82,204,592	)		(855,059,186	)		(72,417,215	)		(674,755,848	)
Net decrease		(43,078,197	)	$	(435,234,486	)		(29,592,401	)	$	(261,206,354	)
Decrease derived from capital shares transactions				$	(435,271,289	)				$	(261,617,477	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009		2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.56		$	9.29		$	7.12	$	12.89		$	12.89
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.15			0.14			0.16		0.16			0.10
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.52	)		1.31			2.01		(4.77	)		0.55
Total from investment operations		(0.37	)		1.45			2.17		(4.61	)		0.65
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.18	)		(0.18	)		0.00		(0.41	)		(0.19	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00		(0.75	)		(0.46	)
Total distributions		(0.18	)		(0.18	)		0.00		(1.16	)		(0.65	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.01		$	10.56		$	9.29	$	7.12		$	12.89
Total Return (%)		(3.64	)		15.77			30.48		(37.74	)		5.03
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)(b)(c)		0.06			0.06			0.06		0.06			0.06
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)(d)		0.06			0.06			0.06		0.06			0.06
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)(e)		1.39			1.51			2.02		1.50			0.77
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		23.9			13.5			39.3		23.0			15.3
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	2.6		$	2.8		$	2.9	$	2.4		$	3.8
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009		2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.51		$	9.25		$	7.11	$	12.85		$	12.87
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.12			0.12			0.15		0.13			0.07
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.51	)		1.30			1.99		(4.75	)		0.53
Total from investment operations		(0.39	)		1.42			2.14		(4.62	)		0.60
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.16	)		(0.16	)		0.00		(0.37	)		(0.16	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00		(0.75	)		(0.46	)
Total distributions		(0.16	)		(0.16	)		0.00		(1.12	)		(0.62	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	9.96		$	10.51		$	9.25	$	7.11		$	12.85
Total Return (%)		(3.87	)		15.49			30.10		(37.87	)		4.70
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)(b)(c)		0.31			0.31			0.31		0.31			0.31
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)(d)		0.31			0.31			0.31		0.31			0.31
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)(e)		1.18			1.31			1.92		1.28			0.50
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		23.9			13.5			39.3		23.0			15.3
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	6,723.5		$	7,456.1		$	6,915.0	$	5,380.6		$	8,190.5

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) See Note 3 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

(c) The ratio of operating expenses to average net assets does not include expenses of the Underlying Portfolios in which the Portfolio invests.

(d) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

(e) Recognition of net investment income by the Portfolio is affected by the timing of the declaration of dividends by the Underlying Portfolios in which it invests.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A and B Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

The Portfolio is designed on established principles of asset allocation to achieve a specific risk profile. The Portfolio will invest substantially all of its assets in other portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. (“Underlying Portfolios”).

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Valuation - Investments in the Underlying Portfolios are valued at their closing daily net asset value. The net asset value of the Portfolio is calculated based on the net asset values of the Underlying Portfolios in which the Portfolio invests. For information about the use of fair value pricing by the Underlying Portfolios, please refer to the prospectuses of the Underlying Portfolios.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - The Portfolio’s security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date. Interest income is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Capital gains distributions received from the Underlying Portfolios are recorded as net realized gain in the Statement of Operations.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to short-term capital gain distributions received from Underlying Portfolios, deferred trustees’ compensation and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$4,051,901		0.100	%	First $ 500 Million
		0.075	%	$500 Million to $1 Billion
		0.050	%	Over $1 Billion

In addition to the above management fee paid to the Adviser, the Portfolio indirectly pays MetLife Advisers a management fee through its investments in the Underlying Portfolios.

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Expense Limitation Agreement - On November 7, 2008, the Strategic Conservative Growth Portfolio, a series of the Trust, merged with and into the Portfolio.

The Adviser had entered into an expense limitation agreement with the Trust (“Expense Limitation Agreement”) in the interest of limiting the expenses of the Strategic Conservative Growth Portfolio. The Expense Limitation Agreement with respect to the Strategic Conservative Growth Portfolio has since expired. Pursuant to the Expense Limitation Agreement, the Adviser had agreed to waive or limit its fees and to assume other expenses so that the total annual operating expenses of the Strategic Conservative Growth Portfolio other than interest, taxes, brokerage commissions, other expenditures which were capitalized in accordance with the GAAP, other extraordinary expenses not incurred in the ordinary course of the Portfolio’s business and Underlying Portfolios’ fees and expenses but including amounts payable pursuant a plan adopted in accordance with Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act were limited to a certain percentage of Strategic Conservative Growth Portfolio’s average daily net assets, as set forth in the Expense Limitation Agreement.

At the time of the merger, the Adviser, subject to approval by the Trust’s Board, was entitled to an aggregate reimbursement of $275,495 from the Strategic Conservative Growth Portfolio. Such amount was a contractual obligation of the Strategic Conservative Growth Portfolio under the Expense Limitation Agreement. As a result of the merger, the Portfolio assumed this contractual obligation of the Strategic Conservative Growth Portfolio. Any reimbursement of the Adviser owed by the Strategic Conservative Growth Portfolio will now be made by the Portfolio, subject to prior approval by the Trust’s Board. The obligation to reimburse the Adviser for any expenses of the Strategic Conservative Growth Portfolio paid by the Adviser expires on December 31, 2013.

As of December 31, 2011, there were no expenses deferred in 2011 and $14,673 was repaid to the Adviser in accordance with the Expense Limitation Agreement. The amount of expenses deferred in 2006 and 2007, which were recovered during the year ended December 31, 2011 was $7,319 and $7,354, respectively. As of December 31, 2011, there was $231,476 in expense deferrals eligible for recoupment by the Adviser. Amounts recouped for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Deferred expense reimbursement in the Statement of Operations.

Expenses Deferred in
2007	2008		2009		2010		2011
Subject to repayment until December 31,
2012	2013		2014		2015		2016
$122,343	$	112,802	$	—	$	—	$	—

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Distribution Agreement and Plan - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A and Class B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B distribution plan provides that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B Shares. However, under the Class B distribution agreement, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B distribution plan are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Under the terms of the Class B distribution plan and distribution agreement, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of the Underlying Portfolios by the Portfolio, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases		Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government	U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government
$—	$1,940,009,663	$—	$2,345,013,737

5. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Underlying Portfolios invest in securities and enter into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Underlying Portfolios may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Underlying Portfolios; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Underlying Portfolios may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Underlying Portfolios have unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Underlying Portfolios to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Underlying Portfolios restrict their exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom they undertake a significant volume of transactions. The Underlying Portfolios reduce the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into master netting arrangements to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Underlying Portfolios’ overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio and in the Underlying Portfolios in which it invests.

7. Transactions in Securities of Affiliated Issuers

The Portfolio does not invest in the Underlying Portfolios for the purpose of exercising control; however, investments by the Portfolio within its principal investment strategies may represent a significant portion of the Underlying Portfolio’s net assets. Transactions in the Underlying Portfolios for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Underlying Portfolio (Class A)	Number of shares held at December 31, 2010		Shares purchased		Shares sold			Number of shares held at December 31, 2011
Baillie Gifford International Stock (formerly Artio International Stock)		22,534,499		1,844,812		(8,489,317	)		15,889,994
BlackRock Bond Income		—		754,348		(127,504	)		626,844
BlackRock High Yield		8,531,531		636,303		(9,167,834	)		—
BlackRock Large Cap Value		42,825,239		812,228		(23,341,122	)		20,296,345

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

7. Transactions in Securities of Affiliated Issuers - continued

Underlying Portfolio (Class A)	Number of shares held at December 31, 2010		Shares purchased		Shares sold			Number of shares held at December 31, 2011
BlackRock Legacy Large Cap Growth		—		8,257,134		(531,341	)		7,725,793
Clarion Global Real Estate		21,997,781		1,599,762		(1,770,067	)		21,827,476
Davis Venture Value		14,226,164		302,179		(2,980,680	)		11,547,663
Dreman Small Cap Value*		—		10,915,984		(680,682	)		10,235,302
Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value		12,000,193		172,997		(6,453,335	)		5,719,855
Harris Oakmark International		22,289,657		12,283,325		(2,582,617	)		31,990,365
Invesco Small Cap Growth		22,311,085		241,605		(8,274,647	)		14,278,043
Janus Forty		3,150,025		289,981		(264,122	)		3,175,884
Jennison Growth		37,114,282		422,877		(14,999,379	)		22,537,780
Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth		42,351,956		392,316		(15,973,761	)		26,770,511
Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth*		—		14,354,561		(926,336	)		13,428,225
Lord Abbett Bond Debenture		5,668,775		6,892,106		(1,604,249	)		10,956,632
Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value		886,184		16,294		(122,434	)		780,044
Met/Dimensional International Small Company*		14,378,603		1,556,211		(1,863,295	)		14,071,519
Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate		6,969,113		8,645,149		(2,199,314	)		13,414,948
Met/Templeton International Bond		11,785,785		1,552,912		(1,458,985	)		11,879,712
MFS® Emerging Markets Equity		13,612,637		1,350,317		(1,351,175	)		13,611,779
MFS® Research International		45,169,160		1,426,347		(11,344,166	)		35,251,341
MFS® Value		35,960,991		1,748,134		(3,456,797	)		34,252,328
Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth		—		1,854,104		(692,548	)		1,161,556
Neuberger Berman Genesis		13,624,149		203,002		(7,993,046	)		5,834,105
PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond		24,646,804		3,134,780		(10,264,918	)		17,516,666
PIMCO Total Return		33,507,987		4,252,923		(9,033,135	)		28,727,775
Rainier Large Cap Equity*		55,944,197		763,881		(30,486,576	)		26,221,502
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth		—		14,848,371		(1,068,370	)		13,780,001
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value		13,578,781		7,559,704		(1,551,498	)		19,586,987
T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth		15,973,247		498,371		(3,262,814	)		13,208,804
Third Avenue Small Cap Value		15,444,736		422,225		(6,245,111	)		9,621,850
Turner Mid Cap Growth*		11,675,362		155,889		(1,987,360	)		9,843,891
Van Eck Global Natural Resources		9,417,244		5,957,129		(1,473,668	)		13,900,705
Van Kampen Comstock		31,376,675		8,625,889		(3,036,196	)		36,966,368

* The Portfolio had ownership of at least 25% of the outstanding voting securities of the Underlying Portfolio as of December 31, 2011. Once filed, the most recent Annual Report of the Underlying Portfolio will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http:// www.sec.gov.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

7. Transactions in Securities of Affiliated Issuers - continued

Underlying Portfolio (Class A)	Net Realized Gain/(Loss) on sales of Underlying Portfolios			Capital Gain Distributions from Underlying Portfolios		Dividend income from Underlying Portfolios		Ending Value as of December 31, 2011
Baillie Gifford International Stock (formerly Artio International Stock)	$	(24,210,499	)	$	—	$	3,713,897	$	125,054,254
BlackRock Bond Income		354,036			—		—		69,517,024
BlackRock High Yield		17,437,951			—		4,912,290		—
BlackRock Large Cap Value		86,323,196			—		5,061,222		210,270,136
BlackRock Legacy Large Cap Growth		(1,575,122	)		—		—		192,758,526
Clarion Global Real Estate		(8,264,345	)		—		8,946,184		203,432,076
Davis Venture Value		(10,987,687	)		—		4,944,382		342,619,163
Dreman Small Cap Value		(1,457,685	)		—		—		134,491,863
Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value		(1,856,381	)		—		986,055		68,409,467
Harris Oakmark International		(12,837,169	)		—		80,732		379,085,819
Invesco Small Cap Growth		19,416,513			—		—		200,892,071
Janus Forty		4,355,193			—		3,825,793		202,145,040
Jennison Growth		64,286,498			—		1,253,096		273,608,654
Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth		7,363,871			—		354,578		209,077,691
Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth		(1,176,754	)		—		—		134,416,533
Lord Abbett Bond Debenture		457,509			—		4,535,843		140,244,893
Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value		(5,562,788	)		—		1,489,555		139,643,416
Met/Dimensional International Small Company		11,216,968			8,424,833		4,927,466		186,447,630
Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate		602,485			191,900		1,478,679		138,710,560
Met/Templeton International Bond		2,926,846			195,157		10,818,619		137,091,879
MFS® Emerging Markets Equity		(2,136,099	)		—		2,318,921		127,406,249
MFS® Research International		(32,710,339	)		—		9,406,169		318,319,606
MFS® Value		11,618,432			—		6,964,011		418,905,971
Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth		(785,770	)		—		—		12,521,569
Neuberger Berman Genesis		19,011,330			—		1,200,571		70,300,966
PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond		10,551,818			14,244,249		5,545,297		208,623,489
PIMCO Total Return		1,009,797			13,538,062		12,584,249		348,755,185
Rainier Large Cap Equity		(27,479,518	)		—		2,609,455		204,265,503
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth		(1,215,933	)		—		—		204,908,620
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value		(8,741,704	)		—		2,504,863		411,326,728
T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth		6,649,542			4,018,288		—		125,879,901
Third Avenue Small Cap Value		2,184,566			—		2,899,324		130,568,510
Turner Mid Cap Growth		5,271,225			—		—		125,706,482
Van Eck Global Natural Resources		9,738,159			15,842,479		2,168,857		187,937,525
Van Kampen Comstock		(5,941,398	)		—		3,987,927		344,526,553
	$	133,836,744		$	56,454,968	$	109,518,035	$	6,727,869,552

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gains				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$112,936,651	$	118,891,482	$	—	$	—	$	112,936,651	$	118,891,482

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards			Total
$116,093,998	$	—	$	39,513,432	$	(1,285,312,955	)	$	(1,129,705,525	)

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses.

As of December 31, 2011, the post-enactment accumulated capital losses were $0 and the pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards and expiration dates were as follows:

Expiring 12/31/2017	Expiring 12/31/2018		Total
$1,158,686,082	$	126,626,873	$	1,285,312,955

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the transfer agent. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 28, 2012

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹ As the Adviser has the day-to-day responsibility for managing the MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio’s investments, the Board only approved an Advisory Agreement with respect to the MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio.

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the Board noted that the Adviser has hired, at its own cost, an independent consultant to provide research and consulting services with respect to the periodic asset allocation targets for each of the Asset Allocation Portfolios and to investments in other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. (the “Underlying Portfolios”), which may assist the Adviser with the selection of Underlying Portfolios for inclusion in each Asset Allocation Portfolio. Additionally, the Board considered that an Investment Committee, consisting of investment professionals from across MetLife, meets at least quarterly to review the asset allocations and discuss the performance of the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds and the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio.

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and Lipper Index for the one- year period ended June 30, 2011, and underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and Lipper Index for the three- and five- year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Dow Jones Moderately Aggressive Index, for the one-, three- and five- year periods ended September 30, 2011. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance, including the peer group used for comparative purposes and the recent changes to the allocation. The Board noted that Wilshire Associates, an independent consultant previously hired by the Adviser, provides research and consulting services with respect to the Portfolio’s allocation targets and investments in Underlying Portfolios. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s performance was being reasonably addressed and/or monitored.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees were equal to the median of its Expense Group and below the median of its Expense Universe, and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were equal to the median of the Expense Group and slightly above the median of the Expense Universe. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s expenses. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory fee is consistent with industry norms and is fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the Underlying Portfolios in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

With respect to the MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s management fees are below the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

In addition, the Board reviewed the advisory fee to be paid to the Adviser for each of the Asset Allocation Portfolios. The Board concluded that the advisory fee to be paid to the Adviser with respect to each Asset Allocation Portfolio is based on services to be provided that are in addition to, rather than duplicative of, the services provided pursuant to the advisory agreements for the Underlying Portfolios of the Asset Allocation Portfolios and that the additional services are necessary because of the differences between the investment policies, strategies and techniques of the Asset Allocation Portfolios and those of their Underlying Portfolios.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

23

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio

Managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A and B shares of the MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio returned 0.17% and -0.12%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Dow Jones Moderate Index¹, returned 0.28%.

Market Environment/Conditions

Economic and political unrest around the world caused sudden and often sharp shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. As a result, riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit based bonds were extremely volatile throughout the year. Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates. Below investment grade bonds experienced a sharp sell-off during the third quarter as investors feared that the European credit crisis might spread and derail the already fragile global economic recovery, but high yield bonds recovered fully in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a tepid, but respectable 5.0% total return. Foreign bonds had similar returns as domestic bonds; although differences in exchange rates produced variations in the returns of bonds from different countries.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to concerns about the economy and global events. After producing a modest return of 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the full year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Smaller domestic stocks, as measured by the Russell 2000 Index, were down 4.2% for the year. Growth style stocks performed modestly better than value style stocks. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis. Stocks in Europe were hurt by both a drop in prices and a stronger dollar, which made these stocks less valuable to the dollar based investors.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

The MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio invested in the underlying portfolios of the Met Investors Series Trust and the Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. to maintain its broad asset allocation goal of 50% to fixed income and 50% to equities. The 50% exposure to bonds during a period of uncertainty dampened the volatility and reduced the downside compared to a portfolio with higher exposure to equities. However, a higher than benchmark exposure to high yield and foreign bonds—both of which boosted relative performance in 2010—detracted from relative performance in 2011 as these asset classes trailed domestic investment grade bonds. The overweighting was a result of the opportunistic investment in these asset classes by several of the core bond portfolios. The investment in smaller and foreign stocks by underlying portfolios that invest mostly in large domestic stocks had a net negative impact on performance for the year. In addition, weak selection and sector positioning within several of the underlying portfolios hurt relative performance.

Among the Portfolio’s domestic equity portfolios, the BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio, the Legg Mason ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio, and the Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio contributed the most to relative performance. BlackRock—which struggled during 2009 and 2010—benefited in 2011 from an overweight and good selection in the Health Care sector. Among the stocks that contributed were Biogen Idec, Humana, and UnitedHealth Group. Neuberger Berman’s good return was driven mostly by its strong stock selection. Among the stocks contributing to performance were Tractor Supply, a retail store that caters to recreational farmers and ranchers, and Polaris Industries, a manufacturer of sports vehicles. Legg Mason ClearBridge’s performance was aided by an overweight position and strong selection in the Health Care sector. Their strong performing Health Care stocks included Biogen Idec Inc., UnitedHealth Group Inc., Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc., and Amgen Inc.

The BlackRock Legacy Large Cap Growth Portfolio and the Davis Venture Value Portfolio were the biggest detractors from relative performance among the domestic equity portfolios. BlackRock Legacy was hurt by overall weak security selection, especially in the Energy and Health Care sectors. Oil service giant Schlumberger and biotech firm Dendreon were among the biggest detractors. Davis detracted from relative performance due in part to owning Sino-Forest, a Chinese forest plantation operator that lost nearly all of its value amid fraud allegations. Weak selection in the Energy sector also detracted from performance.

Within the core foreign equity funds, the Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio (subadvised by Artio Global Management, LLC during 2011) detracted from relative performance due in part to its exposure to stocks in emerging market countries such as China and India. It was also hurt by stock selection in the Financial Services sector in Asia (Hang Lung Properties) and Europe (Lloyds Banking Group). The Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio, the MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio’s single best performing underlying portfolio in 2010, lagged the broad global equity indices in 2011 due to its inclusion of economically sensitive industrial materials stocks. On the plus side, the MFS^® Research International Portfolio helped relative performance due to very good overall stock selection. Australian mining company (Iluka Resources) was a particular strong source of good performance.

For fixed income managers to do well in 2011, they needed to hold higher quality instruments—preferably Treasuries—and hold bonds with longer maturities. The PIMCO Total Return Portfolio, although positive for the year, significantly underperformed the broad bond benchmarks due to its shorter duration, underweight to Treasuries, and lower average credit quality. The Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio’s impact on performance was mixed through the year: it helped performance for three out of four quarters due to its avoidance of troubled European sovereigns, most notably Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain, but its significant relative underperformance during the third quarter overwhelmed the otherwise good performance. During the third quarter, Met/Templeton’s underweight to core foreign countries such as Japan, the United Kingdom, and Germany, as well as

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio

Managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

currency positioning, detracted from performance. The biggest fixed income contributor to relative performance was the PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio. Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) did well as investors sought the safety of U.S. Treasury securities in times of stress.

Investment Committee

MetLife Advisers, LLC

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio and market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are as December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions. MetLife Advisers undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statements) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation, or country diversification (or that of the underlying portfolios used in the Portfolio) is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
PIMCO Total Return Portfolio (Class A)		19.8
BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio (Class A)		9.3
Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio (Class A)		7.2
MFS® Value Portfolio (Class A)		5.0
PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio (Class A)		4.2
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)		3.9
MFS® Research International Portfolio (Class A)		3.7
Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio (Class A)		3.1
BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)		3.0
Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio (Class A)		2.9

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio

MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio managed by

MetLife Advisers, LLC vs. Dow Jones Moderate Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		5 Year		Since Inception3
MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio—Class A		0.17%		2.31%		4.50%
Class B		-0.12%		2.04%		3.99%
Dow Jones Moderate Index1		0.28%		2.83%		5.45%

The performance of Class B shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other class because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹ The Dow Jones Moderate Index is a total returns index designed to provide asset allocation strategists with a target risk benchmark. Each month, the index adjusts its weightings of stocks, bonds, and cash indices (both domestic and foreign) from Barclays and Dow Jones such that the risk of that combination will have 60% of the risk of an all equity portfolio.

² “Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

³ Inception of the Class B shares is 11/4/2004. Inception of the Class A shares is 5/2/2005. Index returns are based on an inception date of 11/4/2004.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A(a)
Actual		0.38%	$	1,000.00	$	958.10	$	1.88
Hypothetical*		0.38%		1,000.00		1,023.28		1.94
Class B(a)
Actual		0.63%	$	1,000.00	$	956.10	$	3.11
Hypothetical*		0.63%		1,000.00		1,022.02		3.21

*   Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

**  Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

(a) The annualized expense ratio reflects the expenses of both the Portfolio and the Underlying Portfolios in which it invests.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Mutual Funds—100.0% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Affiliated Investment Companies—100.0%
Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio (formerly Artio International Stock Portfolio) (Class A)(b)		5,274,014	$	41,506,487
BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio (Class A)(b)		3,798,262		421,227,255
BlackRock High Yield Portfolio (Class A)(a)		11,052,353		92,287,146
BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)(b)		12,952,368		134,186,535
BlackRock Legacy Large Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A)(b)		5,106,619		127,410,141
Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio (Class A)(a)		9,324,588		86,905,158
Davis Venture Value Portfolio (Class A)(b)		4,460,005		132,328,343
Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)(a)		3,647,489		43,623,972
Harris Oakmark International Portfolio (Class A)(a)		10,743,186		127,306,751
Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A)* (a)		6,249,010		87,923,576
Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio (Class A)(a)		3,695,633		47,304,105
Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)(b)		251,350		44,996,679
Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio (Class A)(b)		3,139,245		41,594,991
Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio (Class A)(a)		9,038,831		93,461,517
Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio (Class A)* (a)		14,019,790		138,515,521
Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio (Class A)(a)		7,769,240		89,657,028
MFS® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio (Class A)(a)		4,487,497		42,002,969
MFS® Research International Portfolio (Class A)(a)		18,632,353		168,250,151
MFS® Value Portfolio (Class A)(b)		18,342,498		224,328,748
Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A)(a)		378,370		4,078,825
Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio (Class A)(b)		7,423,421		89,452,228
PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio (Class A)(a)		15,759,207		187,692,162
PIMCO Total Return Portfolio (Class A)(a)		73,556,311		892,973,618
Pioneer Fund Portfolio (Class A)(a)		6,557,785		87,546,424
Affiliated Investment Companies—(Continued)
Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio (Class A)(a)		11,108,017	$	86,531,455
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A)(b)		8,768,693		130,390,460
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)(a)		8,463,816		177,740,134
T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A)(a)		4,239,039		40,398,046
Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)(a)		6,381,908		86,602,496
Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio (Class A)(b)		3,049,669		41,231,519
Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio (Class A)(a)		14,221,960		132,548,667
Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio (Class A)(b)		3,610,076		46,967,090
Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio (Class A)(b)		26,679,489		325,756,562
Total Mutual Funds (Cost $4,299,210,907)				4,514,726,759
Total Investments—100.0% (Cost $4,299,210,907#)				4,514,726,759
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—0.0%				(1,224,902	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	4,513,501,857

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $4,388,302,041. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $179,132,728 and $(52,708,010), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $126,424,718 for federal income tax purposes.

(a) A Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust. (See Note 7 to Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in the investments of affiliated issuers.)

(b) A Portfolio of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. (See Note 7 to Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in the investments of affiliated issuers.)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Mutual Funds
Affiliated Investment Companies	$	4,514,726,759	$	—	$	—	$	4,514,726,759
Total Investments	$	4,514,726,759	$	—	$	—	$	4,514,726,759

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Affiliated investments at value (a)	$	4,514,726,759
Receivable for investments sold		409,161
Receivable for shares sold		195,654
Total assets		4,515,331,574
Liabilities
Payables for:
Shares redeemed		604,816
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		222,595
Distribution and service fees - Class B		953,490
Administration fees		2,000
Custodian and accounting fees		2,067
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		19,682
Total liabilities		1,829,717
Net Assets	$	4,513,501,857
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	4,378,567,141
Accumulated net realized loss		(206,036,672	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments		215,515,852
Undistributed net investment income		125,455,536
Net Assets	$	4,513,501,857
Net Assets
Class A	$	1,128,901
Class B		4,512,372,956
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		107,435
Class B		431,296,304
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	10.51
Class B		10.46

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of affiliated investments was $4,299,210,907.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios	$	97,683,414
Total investment income		97,683,414
Expenses
Management fees		2,640,169
Administration fees		24,000
Custodian and accounting fees		24,800
Distribution and service fees - Class B		11,322,988
Audit and tax services		24,536
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Miscellaneous		8,323
Total expenses		14,113,526
Net investment income		83,569,888
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Affiliated Investments
Net realized gain on:
Affiliated investments		130,416,276
Capital gain distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		61,960,086
Net realized gain on affiliated investments and capital gain distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		192,376,362
Net change in unrealized depreciation on affiliated investments		(289,203,777	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on affiliated investments		(96,827,415	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(13,257,527	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	83,569,888		$	72,986,829
Net realized gain on affiliated investments and capital gain distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		192,376,362			17,129,820
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on affiliated investments		(289,203,777	)		337,891,962
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations		(13,257,527	)		428,008,611
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(22,952	)		(31,438	)
Class B		(82,486,130	)		(87,462,960	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(82,509,082	)		(87,494,398	)
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		402,279,647			811,129,884
Net Increase in Net Assets		306,513,038			1,151,644,097
Net assets at beginning of period		4,206,988,819			3,055,344,722
Net assets at end of period	$	4,513,501,857		$	4,206,988,819
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	125,455,536		$	82,492,621

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		5,683		$	60,721			9,068		$	89,786
Reinvestments		2,090			22,952			3,119			31,438
Redemptions		(7,464	)		(80,644	)		(17,967	)		(172,971	)
Net increase (decrease)		309		$	3,029			(5,780	)	$	(51,747	)
Class B
Sales		72,243,831		$	777,976,559			104,514,299		$	1,046,235,770
Reinvestments		7,532,980			82,486,130			8,694,131			87,462,960
Redemptions		(43,072,879	)		(458,186,071	)		(32,560,146	)		(322,517,099	)
Net increase		36,703,932		$	402,276,618			80,648,284		$	811,181,631
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	402,279,647					$	811,129,884

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.70		$	9.76		$	8.29		$	11.73		$	11.58
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.22			0.25			0.33			0.27			0.20
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.19	)		0.97			1.70			(3.22	)		0.54
Total from investment operations		0.03			1.22			2.03			(2.95	)		0.74
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.22	)		(0.28	)		(0.33	)		(0.21	)		(0.27	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			(0.23	)		(0.28	)		(0.32	)
Total distributions		(0.22	)		(0.28	)		(0.56	)		(0.49	)		(0.59	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.51		$	10.70		$	9.76		$	8.29		$	11.73
Total Return (%)		0.17			12.66			26.35			(26.19	)		6.49
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)(b)(c)		0.06			0.06			0.07			0.07			0.07
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)(d)		2.09			2.50			3.82			2.74			1.73
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		25.2			15.5			28.4			21.6			18.1
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	1.1		$	1.1		$	1.1		$	0.9		$	0.9
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.66		$	9.73		$	8.26		$	11.70		$	11.56
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.20			0.21			0.28			0.25			0.16
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.20	)		0.98			1.73			(3.23	)		0.55
Total from investment operations		0.00			1.19			2.01			(2.98	)		0.71
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.20	)		(0.26	)		(0.31	)		(0.18	)		(0.25	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			(0.23	)		(0.28	)		(0.32	)
Total distributions		(0.20	)		(0.26	)		(0.54	)		(0.46	)		(0.57	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.46		$	10.66		$	9.73		$	8.26		$	11.70
Total Return (%)		(0.12	)		12.40			26.09			(26.42	)		6.21
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)(b)(c)		0.31			0.31			0.32			0.32			0.32
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)(d)		1.84			2.07			3.26			2.45			1.40
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		25.2			15.5			28.4			21.6			18.1
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	4,512.4		$	4,205.8		$	3,054.2		$	1,915.1		$	2,251.9

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) See Note 3 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

(c) The ratio of operating expenses to average net assets does not include expenses of the Underlying Portfolios in which the Portfolio invests.

(d) Recognition of net investment income by the Portfolio is affected by the timing of the declaration of dividends by the Underlying Portfolios in which it invests.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A and B Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

The Portfolio is designed on established principles of asset allocation to achieve a specific risk profile. The Portfolio will invest substantially all of its assets in other portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. (“Underlying Portfolios”).

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Valuation - Investments in the Underlying Portfolios are valued at their closing daily net asset value. The net asset value of the Portfolio is calculated based on the net asset values of the Underlying Portfolios in which the Portfolio invests. For information about the use of fair value pricing by the Underlying Portfolios, please refer to the prospectuses of the Underlying Portfolios.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - The Portfolio’s security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date. Interest income is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Capital gains distributions received from the Underlying Portfolios are recorded as net realized gain in the Statement of Operations.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to short-term capital gain distributions received from Underlying Portfolios, deferred trustees’ compensation, capital loss carryforwards and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$2,640,169		0.100	%	First $500 Million
		0.075	%	$500 Million to $1 Billion
		0.050	%	Over $1 Billion

In addition to the above management fee paid to the Adviser, the Portfolio indirectly pays MetLife Advisers a management fee through its investments in the Underlying Portfolios.

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Distribution Agreement and Plan - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A and Class B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B distribution plan provides that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B Shares. However, under the Class B distribution agreement, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B distribution plan are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B distribution plan and distribution agreement, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of the Underlying Portfolios by the Portfolio, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$—	$	1,609,671,845	$	—	$	1,144,265,577

5. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Underlying Portfolios invest in securities and enter into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Underlying Portfolios may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Underlying Portfolios; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Underlying Portfolios may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Underlying Portfolios have unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Underlying Portfolios to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Underlying Portfolios restrict their exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom they undertake a significant volume of transactions. The Underlying Portfolios reduce the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into master netting arrangements to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Underlying Portfolios’ overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio and in the Underlying Portfolios in which it invests.

7. Transactions in Securities of Affiliated Issuers

The Portfolio does not invest in the Underlying Portfolios for the purpose of exercising control; however, investments by the Portfolio within its principal investment strategies may represent a significant portion of the Underlying Portfolio’s net assets. Transactions in the Underlying Portfolios for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Underlying Portfolio (Class A)	Number of shares held at December 31, 2010		Shares purchased		Shares sold			Number of shares held at December 31, 2011
Baillie Gifford International Stock (formerly Artio International Stock)		8,430,748		1,465,832		(4,622,566	)		5,274,014
BlackRock Bond Income		1,499,619		2,598,618		(299,975	)		3,798,262
BlackRock High Yield		9,833,124		1,653,002		(433,773	)		11,052,353
BlackRock Large Cap Value		20,434,426		1,991,206		(9,473,264	)		12,952,368
BlackRock Legacy Large Cap Growth		—		5,213,019		(106,400	)		5,106,619
Clarion Global Real Estate		8,446,357		1,306,621		(428,390	)		9,324,588
Davis Venture Value		6,733,921		698,383		(2,972,299	)		4,460,005
Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value		3,423,358		457,618		(233,487	)		3,647,489
Harris Oakmark International		9,405,081		1,741,930		(403,825	)		10,743,186
Invesco Small Cap Growth		6,338,300		850,798		(940,088	)		6,249,010
Jennison Growth		14,167,165		979,628		(15,146,793	)		—
Lazard Mid Cap		3,826,921		281,916		(4,108,837	)		—
Lord Abbett Bond Debenture		13,126,966		1,855,709		(11,287,042	)		3,695,633
Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value		248,807		25,477		(22,934	)		251,350
Met/Dimensional International Small Company		2,690,853		710,098		(261,706	)		3,139,245
Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate		7,973,217		1,393,796		(328,182	)		9,038,831
Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return		—		14,429,744		(409,954	)		14,019,790
Met/Templeton International Bond		6,684,336		1,263,339		(178,435	)		7,769,240
MFS® Emerging Markets Equity		3,913,966		925,839		(352,308	)		4,487,497
MFS® Research International		17,136,223		2,912,566		(1,416,436	)		18,632,353
MFS® Value		17,013,997		1,945,990		(617,489	)		18,342,498
Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth		—		445,472		(67,102	)		378,370
Neuberger Berman Genesis		3,840,364		3,759,516		(176,459	)		7,423,421

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

7. Transactions in Securities of Affiliated Issuers - continued

Underlying Portfolio (Class A)	Number of shares held at December 31, 2010		Shares purchased		Shares sold			Number of shares held at December 31, 2011
PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond		18,043,404		3,131,031		(5,415,228	)		15,759,207
PIMCO Total Return		75,328,155		12,716,391		(14,488,235	)		73,556,311
Pioneer Fund		—		6,694,940		(137,155	)		6,557,785
Rainier Large Cap Equity		15,960,238		1,497,627		(6,349,848	)		11,108,017
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth		—		8,971,251		(202,558	)		8,768,693
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value		3,890,311		4,755,264		(181,759	)		8,463,816
T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth		4,506,454		396,660		(664,075	)		4,239,039
Third Avenue Small Cap Value		5,941,865		1,027,788		(587,745	)		6,381,908
Van Eck Global Natural Resources		2,711,432		872,068		(533,831	)		3,049,669
Van Kampen Comstock		13,288,534		1,590,034		(656,608	)		14,221,960
Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities		—		3,804,548		(194,472	)		3,610,076
Western Asset Management U.S. Government		26,505,951		4,383,475		(4,209,937	)		26,679,489

Underlying Portfolio (Class A)	Net Realized Gain/(Loss) on sales of Underlying Portfolios			Capital Gain Distributions from Underlying Portfolios		Dividend income from Underlying Portfolios		Ending Value as of December 31, 2011
Baillie Gifford International Stock (formerly Artio International Stock)	$	(4,107,973	)	$	—	$	1,492,258	$	41,506,487
BlackRock Bond Income		3,634,247			—		6,962,564		421,227,255
BlackRock High Yield		6,876			—		6,056,814		92,287,146
BlackRock Large Cap Value		35,555,825			—		2,583,377		134,186,535
BlackRock Legacy Large Cap Growth		(377,662	)		—		—		127,410,141
Clarion Global Real Estate		(2,577,258	)		—		3,675,311		86,905,158
Davis Venture Value		9,315,126			—		2,506,395		132,328,343
Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value		1,143,663			—		298,066		43,623,972
Harris Oakmark International		(2,134,060	)		—		36,455		127,306,751
Invesco Small Cap Growth		6,327,527			—		—		87,923,576
Jennison Growth		35,259,503			—		511,621		—
Lazard Mid Cap		16,915,676			—		424,867		—
Lord Abbett Bond Debenture		17,386,074			—		11,240,007		47,304,105
Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value		1,624,666			—		447,591		44,996,679
Met/Dimensional International Small Company		1,707,153			1,670,633		977,109		41,594,991
Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate		82,263			234,762		1,808,956		93,461,517
Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return		(33,132	)		—		—		138,515,521
Met/Templeton International Bond		356,412			118,895		6,591,009		89,657,028
MFS® Emerging Markets Equity		1,998,089			—		710,936		42,002,969
MFS® Research International		(2,301,963	)		—		3,793,821		168,250,151
MFS® Value		2,151,115			—		3,526,818		224,328,748
Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth		(103,056	)		—		—		4,078,825

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

7. Transactions in Securities of Affiliated Issuers - continued

Underlying Portfolio (Class A)	Net Realized Gain/(Loss) on sales of Underlying Portfolios			Capital Gain Distributions from Underlying Portfolios		Dividend income from Underlying Portfolios		Ending Value as of December 31, 2011
Neuberger Berman Genesis	$	229,724		$	—	$	362,145	$	89,452,228
PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond		2,973,013			10,759,743		4,188,776		187,692,162
PIMCO Total Return		5,793,504			31,250,858		29,049,106		892,973,618
Pioneer Fund		(237,483	)		—		—		87,546,424
Rainier Large Cap Equity		(5,243,034	)		—		796,301		86,531,455
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth		(268,954	)		—		—		130,390,460
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value		576,487			—		767,402		177,740,134
T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth		1,556,461			1,194,264		—		40,398,046
Third Avenue Small Cap Value		150,415			—		1,190,450		86,602,496
Van Eck Global Natural Resources		4,062,833			4,727,684		647,226		41,231,519
Van Kampen Comstock		(354,018	)		—		1,808,046		132,548,667
Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities		38,157			—		—		46,967,090
Western Asset Management U.S. Government		(689,940	)		12,003,247		5,229,987		325,756,562
	$	130,416,276		$	61,960,086	$	97,683,414	$	4,514,726,759

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gains				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$82,509,082	$	87,494,398	$	—	$	—	$	82,509,082	$	87,494,398

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards			Total
$125,480,604	$	—	$	126,424,718	$	(116,945,536	)	$	134,959,786

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses.

As of December 31, 2011, the post-enactment accumulated capital losses were $0 and the pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards and expiration dates were as follows:

Expiring 12/31/2017		Total
$	116,945,536	$	116,945,536

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the transfer agent. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 28, 2012

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹ As the Adviser has the day-to-day responsibility for managing the MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio’s investments, the Board only approved an Advisory Agreement with respect to the MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio.

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the Board noted that the Adviser has hired, at its own cost, an independent consultant to provide research and consulting services with respect to the periodic asset allocation targets for each of the Asset Allocation Portfolios and to investments in other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. (the “Underlying Portfolios”), which may assist the Adviser with the selection of Underlying Portfolios for inclusion in each Asset Allocation Portfolio. Additionally, the Board considered that an Investment Committee, consisting of investment professionals from across MetLife, meets at least quarterly to review the asset allocations and discuss the performance of the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds and the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio.

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the one- year period ended June 30, 2011, and outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and Lipper Index for the three- and five- year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Dow Jones Moderate Index, for the one-, three- and five- year periods ended September 30, 2011. The Board noted that Wilshire Associates, an independent consultant previously hired by the Adviser, provides research and consulting services with respect to the Portfolio’s allocation targets and investments in Underlying Portfolios. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s overall performance was adequate.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the Expense Group median and the Expense Universe median. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory fee is consistent with industry norms and is fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the Underlying Portfolios in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreement—(Continued)

for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

With respect to the MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s management fees are below the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

In addition, the Board reviewed the advisory fee to be paid to the Adviser for each of the Asset Allocation Portfolios. The Board concluded that the advisory fee to be paid to the Adviser with respect to each Asset Allocation Portfolio is based on services to be provided that are in addition to, rather than duplicative of, the services provided pursuant to the advisory agreements for the Underlying Portfolios of the Asset Allocation Portfolios and that the additional services are necessary because of the differences between the investment policies, strategies and techniques of the Asset Allocation Portfolios and those of their Underlying Portfolios.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

23

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust MFS^® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio

Managed by Massachusetts Financial Services Company

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A and B shares of the MFS Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio returned -18.42% and -18.70%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the MSCI Emerging Markets Index¹, returned -18.42%.

Market Environment/Conditions

Early in 2011, the U.S. Federal Reserve (the Fed) responded to weak economic growth by loosening monetary policy further. More easing by the Fed improved market sentiment and drove risk-asset prices markedly higher. The December 2010 agreement on a surprisingly large (relative to expectations) expansionary U.S. fiscal package also boosted sentiment. During the subsequent several months, the renewed positive market sentiment, coupled with better indications of global macroeconomic activity, pushed many asset valuations to post-crisis highs. At the same time, the yields of the perceived “safest” global sovereign credits rose, indicating a renewed risk-seeking environment.

However, towards the middle of the period, a weakening macroeconomic backdrop and renewed concerns over peripheral Eurozone sovereign debt caused a flight-to-quality move that pushed high-quality sovereign bond yields lower. In the U.S., concerns about the budget deficit and the long-term sustainability of the trend in U.S. fiscal policy resulted in one agency downgrading U.S. credit quality. Amidst this turmoil, global equity markets declined sharply. As a result of these developments, global consumer and producer sentiment indicators fell precipitously and highly-rated sovereign bond yields hit multi-decade lows. Towards the end of the reporting period, uncertainty in financial markets spiked higher as markets more seriously contemplated the possible failure of the Eurozone.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

Stock selection in the Information Technology, Utilities, and Telecommunications sectors was a primary factor that contributed to performance relative to the MSCI Emerging Markets Index. Within the Information Technology sector, the Portfolio’s holdings of electronics company Samsung Electronics (Korea) and semiconductor manufacturer Taiwan Semiconductor contributed to relative returns as both stocks turned in strong performance over the reporting period. Within the Telecommunications sector, holdings of strong-performing telecommunications service provider China Unicom (Hong Kong) were among the Portfolio’s top relative contributors.

An overweight allocation to the retailing industry also boosted relative performance. The Portfolio’s holdings of footwear manufacturer Stella International (Hong Kong) and discount store chain E-Mart (South Korea) benefited relative returns as both stocks appreciated over the reporting period.

Top relative contributors in other sectors included automotive parts manufacturer Mando Corp. (South Korea), conglomerate First Pacific Company Co. (Hong Kong), casino resorts operator Sands China (Hong Kong), and construction, concrete, and cement company Anhui Conch Cement (China).

The Portfolio’s cash position was also a contributor to relative performance. The Portfolio holds cash to buy new holdings and to provide liquidity. In a period when equity markets declined, as measured by the Portfolio’s benchmark, holding cash helped performance versus the benchmark, which has no cash position.

Security selection in the Materials sector held back relative performance. The Portfolio’s holdings of Steel Authority of India detracted from relative returns as the stock underperformed the benchmark.

Stock selection in the Financials sector also hindered relative results. Holdings of commercial banking firm Sberbank (Russia), diversified financial services provider Commercial International Bank (Egypt), and Austrian financial services company Erste Group Bank detracted from relative returns as all three stocks turned in weak performance over the reporting period.

Elsewhere, holdings of information technology products and electronics maker Acer (Taiwan), Brazilian post-secondary education company Anhanguera Educacional Participacoes, automobile trader and manufacturer Geely Automobile Holdings (Hong Kong), and petrochemical firm Reliance Industries (India) weakened relative returns. Not holding strong-performing global auto maker Hyundai Motor (South Korea), and the timing of the Portfolio’s ownership in shares of outperforming automobile manufacturer Kia Motors (South Korea), were additional factors that negatively impacted relative performance.

During the reporting period we rearranged our position in homebuilding and materials, selling out of a flooring and fixtures company in Brazil and replacing it with a homebuilder in the same country. We continued to like homebuilders in emerging markets as they tend to be direct beneficiaries of the rising middle class and income levels. Although our overall position in metals and mining has come down over the reporting period due to weakness in the steel complex, we consider the names we hold in steel to be somewhat core positions due to their considerable competitive advantages.

During the second half of the year, we continued to increase our exposure to automobiles in Asia as demand in the region continued to increase. We’ve trimmed a strong performing Asian auto parts company to help fund our increase to auto manufacturers.

In Financials we increased our exposure to regional bourses as they continued to grow out their franchises. We believe we will continue to see growth in local capital markets as more companies decide to list their shares and that regulation will make it difficult for foreign competition.

During the latter part of the period, we introduced two new retailers in South Africa and one in Russia. We believe the retailers are characterized by attractive valuations, capable management, and strong local brand presence. These new additions have already added value to the Portfolio as they performed well during the fourth quarter.

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio

Managed by Massachusetts Financial Services Company

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

At period end, the Portfolio continued to focus on the rising middle class and increase in discretionary spending. We have maintained our large exposure to small and midcap domestic demand-driven names with less emphasis on large cap export-driven names. At year end we were overweight Retailing, Information Technology, and Leisure while our largest underweights were in Energy and Materials.

Jose Luis Garcia and Robert Lau

Massachusetts Financial Services Company

* This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.		5.4
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd.		2.8
MTN Group, Ltd.		1.9
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (ADR)		1.8
Vale S.A. (ADR)		1.8
China Construction Bank Corp.		1.8
Gazprom (ADR)		1.8
Mr. Price Group, Ltd.		1.6
China Unicom (Hong Kong), Ltd. (ADR)		1.6
Infosys Technologies, Ltd. (ADR)		1.6

Top Countries

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Brazil		17.4
South Korea		12.2
Hong Kong		12.0
Taiwan		7.7
South Africa		7.4
India		7.0
China		6.6
Mexico		5.0
Russia		4.3
Indonesia		2.3

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio

MFS^® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio managed by

Massachusetts Financial Services Company vs. MSCI Emerging Markets (EM) Index^SM1

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 year		5 year		Since Inception3
MFS® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio—Class A		-18.42%		0.89%		1.84%
Class B		-18.70%		0.63%		1.56%
MSCI Emerging Markets (EM) IndexSM1		-18.42%		2.40%		3.87%

The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other class of shares because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹The MSCI Emerging Market (EM) Index^SM is an unmanaged market capitalization weighed equity index composed of companies that are representative of the market structure of the following 21 emerging market country indices: Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Czech Republic, Egypt, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Russia, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, and Turkey. The index returns shown above were calculated with net dividends: they reflect the reinvestment of dividends after the deduction of the maximum possible withholding taxes.

² “Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

³ Inception of Class A and Class B shares is 5/1/2006. Index returns are based on an inception date of 5/1/2006.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A
Actual		1.12%	$	1,000.00	$	813.20	$	5.12
Hypothetical*		1.12%		1,000.00		1,019.55		5.70
Class B
Actual		1.37%	$	1,000.00	$	811.70	$	6.26
Hypothetical*		1.37%		1,000.00		1,018.29		6.97

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—98.6% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Austria—0.3%
Erste Group Bank AG		183,340	$	3,218,274
Brazil—17.0%
Anhanguera Educacional Participacoes S.A.		651,100		7,016,277
Arezzo & Co.		369,900		4,600,820
Banco Santander Brasil S.A.		860,000		6,897,521
BM&F BOVESPA S.A.		1,950,900		10,250,004
Brasil Brokers Participacoes		1,838,700		5,500,574
Brasil Insurance Participacoes e Administracao S.A.		865,600		7,889,130
CETIP		402,100		5,809,728
CIA Hering		245,800		4,277,533
Cielo S.A.		127,602		3,297,368
Companhia de Bebidas das Americas (ADR) (a)		285,692		10,310,624
Companhia Siderurgica Nacional S.A. (ADR) (a)		348,595		2,851,507
CSU Cardsystem S.A.		1,533,998		3,783,080
Diagnosticos da America S.A.		902,200		7,497,172
Duratex S.A.		6,806		32,548
Embraer S.A. (ADR) (a)		149,010		3,758,032
Fleury S.A.		423,600		4,859,960
Gerdau S.A. (ADR) (a)		379,620		2,964,832
Itau Unibanco Banco Multiplo S.A. (ADR)		241,783		4,487,493
Kroton Educacional S.A.*		419,223		4,133,232
Lojas Renner S.A.		161,500		4,191,511
LPS Brasil-Consultoria de Imoveis S.A.		335,300		4,673,797
M Dias Branco S.A.		272,000		6,955,850
Multiplus S.A.		167,240		2,891,564
PDG Realty SA Empreendimentos e Participacoes		853,100		2,698,453
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (ADR)		753,532		18,725,270
Redecard S.A.		162,500		2,543,024
Tim Participacoes S.A. (ADR) (a)		139,388		3,596,210
Totvs S.A.		190,900		3,404,012
Tractebel Energia S.A.		282,740		4,541,424
Vale S.A. (ADR)		860,630		18,460,514
				172,899,064
Canada—0.4%
Bankers Petroleum, Ltd.*		903,709		3,945,978
Chile—1.2%
Aguas Andinas S.A.		7,272,759		4,171,460
Banco Santander Chile (ADR) (a)		30,605		2,316,799
Chile—(Continued)
Empresa Nacional de Telecomunicaciones S.A.		114,349	$	2,123,892
Enersis S.A. (ADR)		192,602		3,395,573
				12,007,724
China—6.6%
Anhui Conch Cement Co., Ltd.—Class H		2,057,000		6,059,007
Bank of China, Ltd.		40,336,000		14,935,844
China Construction Bank Corp.		25,766,060		18,013,328
China Pacific Insurance (Group) Co., Ltd.—Class H		3,967,400		11,301,716
China Shenhua Energy Co., Ltd.		2,289,500		9,934,083
Guangzhou Automobile Group Co., Ltd.		4,984,000		4,146,942
Maanshan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd.—Class H		7,744,000		2,490,297
				66,881,217
Colombia—0.2%
Bancolombia S.A. (ADR) (a)		39,087		2,328,022
Czech Republic—1.4%
Komercni Banka A.S.		83,520		14,177,780
Egypt—0.4%
Commercial International Bank Egypt SAE (GDR)		1,323,621		3,984,099
Hong Kong—12.0%
Ajisen China Holdings, Ltd.		3,437,000		3,774,951
China Mobile, Ltd.		596,500		5,815,668
China Unicom (Hong Kong), Ltd.		2,348,000		4,967,948
China Unicom (Hong Kong), Ltd. (ADR) (a)		779,009		16,460,460
CNOOC, Ltd.		5,243,000		9,198,696
Dairy Farm International Holdings, Ltd.		639,900		5,975,634
First Pacific Co., Ltd.		12,250,800		12,744,398
Geely Automobile Holdings, Ltd.		18,540,000		4,032,935
GOME Electrical Appliances Holding, Ltd.		16,206,000		3,767,256
Hang Lung Properties, Ltd.		2,477,000		7,042,112
Hengan International Group Co., Ltd.		959,500		8,944,442
Li & Fung, Ltd.		5,358,000		9,849,964
Sands China, Ltd.*		1,409,600		3,995,049
Sinotruk Hong Kong, Ltd.		10,961,500		6,117,511
Stella International Holdings, Ltd.		5,525,000		12,002,793
VTech Holdings, Ltd.		726,100		7,264,774
				121,954,591

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
India—7.0%
BEML, Ltd.		162,395	$	1,396,680
Dabur India, Ltd.		5,985,559		11,247,747
Dish TV India, Ltd.*		3,518,462		3,914,935
Housing Development Finance Corp., Ltd.		548,737		6,702,747
ICICI Bank, Ltd.		409,757		5,273,805
Infosys Technologies, Ltd. (ADR) (a)		311,470		16,003,328
MOIL, Ltd.		915,502		3,913,023
Oil & Natural Gas Corp., Ltd.		574,405		2,773,159
Reliance Industries, Ltd.		1,133,876		14,795,573
Steel Authority of India, Ltd.		3,409,120		5,207,170
				71,228,167
Indonesia—2.3%
PT Bank Negara Indonesia (Persero) Tbk		21,508,500		9,010,464
PT Mitra Adiperkasa Tbk		4,854,000		2,755,980
PT XL Axiata Tbk		22,591,000		11,248,188
				23,014,632
Israel—0.6%
NICE Systems, Ltd. (ADR)* (a)		167,660		5,775,887
Japan—2.0%
Chugoku Marine Paints, Ltd. (a)		1,008,000		6,238,798
GLORY, Ltd. (a)		237,800		5,118,268
Inpex Corp.		1,441		9,059,489
				20,416,555
Luxembourg—2.1%
O’Key Group S.A. Depositary Receipts		1,638,770		11,225,574
Tenaris S.A. (ADR) (a)		181,342		6,742,296
Ternium S.A. (ADR)		183,154		3,368,202
				21,336,072
Malaysia—1.7%
CIMB Group Holdings Berhad		5,089,900		11,929,501
Top Glove Corp. Berhad		3,653,700		5,764,916
				17,694,417
Mexico—5.0%
Alfa S.A.B.—Class A (a)		153,633		1,674,487
America Movil S.A.B. de C.V. (ADR)		619,526		14,001,288
Arca Continental S.A.B. de C.V.		545,215		2,324,777
Bolsa Mexicana de Valores S.A. de C.V. (a)		3,532,900		5,600,323
Corporacion GEO S.A.B. de C.V., Series B*		1,548,840		1,912,443
Mexico—(Continued)
Corporacion Moctezuma S.A.B. de C.V.		1,458,200	$	2,980,322
Genomma Lab Internacional S.A.B. de C.V.—Class B*		2,571,800		4,959,610
Grupo Aeroportuario del Sureste S.A.B. de C.V. (ADR) (a)		79,522		4,448,461
Grupo Mexico S.A.B. de C.V., Series B		1,533,846		4,032,980
Kimberly-Clark de Mexico, S.A.B. de C.V.—Class A		514,179		2,796,744
Mexichem S.A.B. de C.V. (a)		776,400		2,431,440
Urbi Desarrollos Urbanos S.A.B de C.V.* (a)		2,930,856		3,335,351
				50,498,226
Panama—0.3%
Copa Holdings S.A.—Class A		49,089		2,880,052
Philippines—0.5%
Manila Water Co.		12,621,200		5,584,686
Russia—4.3%
Gazprom (ADR)		1,681,268		17,892,539
Metal and Metallurgical Co. Norilsk Nickel (ADR)		386,852		5,922,704
Mobile Telesystems (ADR)		316,810		4,650,771
Sberbank of Russia		6,948,000		15,518,295
				43,984,309
South Africa—7.4%
Clicks Group Ltd.		2,098,540		11,989,769
Gold Fields, Ltd.		450,319		6,902,675
Mr. Price Group, Ltd.		1,677,139		16,541,624
MTN Group, Ltd.		1,076,940		19,115,367
Naspers, Ltd.—Class N		314,040		13,682,962
Tiger Brands, Ltd.		242,118		7,507,216
				75,739,613
South Korea—12.2%
E-Mart Co., Ltd.		51,786		12,549,046
Hana Financial Group, Inc.		376,000		11,578,422
Kia Motors Corp.		244,430		14,171,065
Mando Corp.		56,068		10,040,185
POSCO		14,390		4,767,929
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.		59,814		54,940,705
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd.*		203,306		3,714,111
Shinsegae Co., Ltd.		18,392		3,911,904
TK Corp.*		398,202		8,242,217
				123,915,584

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Taiwan—7.7%
Chinatrust Financial Holding Co., Ltd.		12,648,249	$	7,887,094
Formosa Plastics Corp.		1,750,000		4,663,781
High Tech Computer Corp.		264,967		4,337,512
Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd.		5,851,146		15,990,047
Siliconware Precision Industries Co.		16,310,000		14,591,478
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd.		11,202,842		28,015,862
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (ADR)		260,481		3,362,810
				78,848,584
Thailand—2.1%
Asian Property Development Public Co., Ltd.		17,938,700		2,820,157
Bangkok Bank Public Co., Ltd.		2,223,000		10,812,334
CP ALL PCL		3,491,000		5,726,125
Minor International PCL		4,417,100		1,568,036
				20,926,652
Turkey—1.9%
BIM Birlesik Magazalar A.S.		82,303		2,289,328
Tupras-Turkiye Petrol Rafinerileri A.S.		592,169		12,539,275
Turkiye Garanti Bankasi A.S.		1,390,101		4,335,435
				19,164,038
United Kingdom—1.2%
Standard Chartered plc		564,256		12,325,434
United States—0.8%
Credicorp, Ltd.		73,683		8,066,078
Total Common Stocks (Cost $1,043,074,771)				1,002,795,735
Preferred Stocks—0.4%
Brazil—0.4%
Eletropaulo Metropolitana S.A. (Cost—$4,010,242)		213,769		4,183,122
Right—0.0%
Brazil—0.0%
Kroton Educacional S.A.* (Cost—$0)		169,028		48,029

Short-Term Investments—4.9%

Security Description	Shares/Par Amount		Value
Mutual Funds—3.8%
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (b)		39,113,899	$	39,113,899
Repurchase Agreement—1.1%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $10,977,012 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $1,560,000 Federal National Mortgage Association at 4.377% due 01/23/18 with a value of $1,834,950; and by $8,680,000 U.S. Treasury Note at 4.250% due 11/15/13 with value of $9,363,550.	$	10,977,000		10,977,000
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $50,090,899)				50,090,899
Total Investments—103.9% (Cost $1,097,175,912#)				1,057,117,785
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(3.9)%				(39,301,796	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	1,017,815,989

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $1,118,702,793. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $96,272,668 and $(157,857,676), respectively, resulting in net unrealized depreciation of $(61,585,008) for federal income tax purposes.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities loaned was $38,244,229 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $39,113,899. The cash collateral is invested in a money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian.

(b) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities lending transactions.

(ADR)— An American Depositary Receipt is a certificate issued by a custodian bank representing the right to receive securities of the foreign issuer described. Trading on exchanges not located in the United States or Canada significantly influences the value of ADRs.

(GDR)— A Global Depositary Receipt is a negotiable certificate issued by one country’s bank against a certain number of shares of a company’s stock held in its custody but traded on the stock exchange of another country.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

The Largest  Industries as of December 31, 2011 (Unaudited)
	% of Net Assets
Commercial Banks		16.4
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment		10.3
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels		9.7
Metals & Mining		6.0
Food & Staples Retailing		4.9
Wireless Telecommunication Services		4.8
Diversified Telecommunication Services		3.2
Diversified Financial Services		2.8
IT Services		2.5
Specialty Retail		2.4

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Common Stocks
Austria	$	—	$	3,218,274	$	—	$	3,218,274
Brazil		172,899,064		—		—		172,899,064
Canada		3,945,978		—		—		3,945,978
Chile		12,007,724		—		—		12,007,724
China		—		66,881,217		—		66,881,217
Colombia		2,328,022		—		—		2,328,022
Czech Republic		—		14,177,780		—		14,177,780
Egypt		3,984,099		—		—		3,984,099
Hong Kong		16,460,460		105,494,131		—		121,954,591
India		16,003,328		55,224,839		—		71,228,167
Indonesia		—		23,014,632		—		23,014,632
Israel		5,775,887		—		—		5,775,887
Japan		—		20,416,555		—		20,416,555
Luxembourg		21,336,072		—		—		21,336,072
Malaysia		—		17,694,417		—		17,694,417
Mexico		50,498,226		—		—		50,498,226
Panama		2,880,052		—		—		2,880,052
Philippines		—		5,584,686		—		5,584,686
Russia		28,466,014		15,518,295		—		43,984,309
South Africa		—		75,739,613		—		75,739,613
South Korea		—		123,915,584		—		123,915,584
Taiwan		3,362,810		75,485,774		—		78,848,584
Thailand		10,114,318		10,812,334		—		20,926,652
Turkey		—		19,164,038		—		19,164,038
United Kingdom		—		12,325,434		—		12,325,434
United States		8,066,078		—		—		8,066,078
Total Common Stocks		358,128,132		644,667,603		—		1,002,795,735
Total Preferred Stock*		4,183,122		—		—		4,183,122
Total Right*		48,029		—		—		48,029

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY—(Continued)

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Short-Term Investments
Mutual Funds	$	39,113,899	$	—	$	—	$	39,113,899
Repurchase Agreement		—		10,977,000		—		10,977,000
Total Short-Term Investments		39,113,899		10,977,000		—		50,090,899
Total Investments	$	401,473,182	$	655,644,603	$	—	$	1,057,117,785

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)(b)	$	1,046,140,785
Repurchase Agreement		10,977,000
Cash		802
Cash denominated in foreign currencies (c)		374,966
Receivable for shares sold		571,735
Dividends receivable		778,852
Total assets		1,058,844,140
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		580,417
Shares redeemed		186,459
Collateral for securities loaned		39,113,899
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		812,305
Distribution and service fees - Class B		116,559
Administration fees		4,392
Custodian and accounting fees		110,600
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		78,453
Total liabilities		41,028,151
Net Assets	$	1,017,815,989
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	1,160,412,011
Accumulated net realized loss		(112,041,947	)
Unrealized depreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		(40,070,775	)
Undistributed net investment income		9,516,700
Net Assets	$	1,017,815,989
Net Assets
Class A	$	473,472,911
Class B		544,343,078
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		50,606,708
Class B		58,695,299
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	9.36
Class B		9.27

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreement, was $1,086,198,912.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $38,244,229.

(c) Identified cost of cash denominated in foreign currencies was $374,459.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	28,489,940
Interest (b)		168,850
Total investment income		28,658,790
Expenses
Management fees		10,076,590
Administration fees		56,118
Custodian and accounting fees		1,602,351
Distribution and service fees - Class B		1,446,507
Audit and tax services		49,684
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Shareholder reporting		87,281
Insurance		6,962
Miscellaneous		12,717
Total expenses		13,406,920
Net investment income		15,251,870
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments, Futures Contracts and Foreign Currency Transactions
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments (c)		102,681,409
Futures contracts		(296,809	)
Foreign currency transactions		(486,596	)
Net realized gain on investments, futures contracts and foreign currency transactions		101,898,004
Net change in unrealized depreciation on:
Investments (d)		(329,114,390	)
Foreign currency transactions		(20,925	)
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		(329,135,315	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments, futures contracts and foreign currency transactions		(227,237,311	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(211,985,441	)

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $2,759,664.

(b) Includes net income on securities loaned of $155,273.

(c) Net of foreign capital gains taxes of $(2,526,007).

(d) Includes foreign capital gains tax of $(2,783,990).

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	15,251,870		$	9,538,900
Net realized gain on investments, futures contracts and foreign currency transactions		101,898,004			55,311,883
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments and foreign currency transactions		(329,135,315	)		145,358,380
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations		(211,985,441	)		210,209,163
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(8,917,604	)		(5,296,876	)
Class B		(8,137,869	)		(4,115,531	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(17,055,473	)		(9,412,407	)
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		74,391,910			211,317,693
Net Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets		(154,649,004	)		412,114,449
Net assets at beginning of period		1,172,464,993			760,350,544
Net assets at end of period	$	1,017,815,989		$	1,172,464,993
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	9,516,700		$	5,150,808

Other Information: Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		11,177,578		$	116,803,493			11,917,553		$	119,171,487
Reinvestments		751,272			8,917,604			534,498			5,296,876
Redemptions		(12,496,252	)		(144,823,331	)		(5,441,335	)		(54,701,216	)
Net increase (decrease)		(567,402	)	$	(19,102,234	)		7,010,716		$	69,767,147
Class B
Sales		18,171,015		$	193,946,840			21,322,241		$	214,894,144
Reinvestments		690,235			8,137,869			417,821			4,115,531
Redemptions		(10,056,880	)		(108,590,565	)		(7,935,390	)		(77,459,129	)
Net increase		8,804,370		$	93,494,144			13,804,672		$	141,550,546
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	74,391,910					$	211,317,693

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	11.65		$	9.50		$	5.75		$	14.39		$	10.51
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.16			0.12			0.10			0.23			0.18
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(2.28	)		2.15			3.79			(7.42	)		3.71
Total from investment operations		(2.12	)		2.27			3.89			(7.19	)		3.89
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.17	)		(0.12	)		(0.14	)		(0.19	)		(0.01	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(1.26	)		0.00
Total distributions		(0.17	)		(0.12	)		(0.14	)		(1.45	)		(0.01	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	9.36		$	11.65		$	9.50		$	5.75		$	14.39
Total Return (%)		(18.42	)		24.00			69.17			(55.38	)		36.93
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.09			1.12			1.17			1.11			1.25	(b)
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)		1.09			1.12			1.17			1.11			1.17
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.50			1.19			1.39			2.34			1.49
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		40.4			35.2			92.0			107.6			126.8
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	473.5		$	596.0		$	419.7		$	437.0		$	572.9

	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	11.56		$	9.44		$	5.71		$	14.32		$	10.49
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.14			0.09			0.07			0.21			0.13
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(2.28	)		2.13			3.79			(7.39	)		3.71
Total from investment operations		(2.14	)		2.22			3.86			(7.18	)		3.84
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.15	)		(0.10	)		(0.13	)		(0.17	)		(0.01	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(1.26	)		0.00
Total distributions		(0.15	)		(0.10	)		(0.13	)		(1.43	)		(0.01	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	9.27		$	11.56		$	9.44		$	5.71		$	14.32
Total Return (%)		(18.70	)		23.65			68.95			(55.53	)		36.62
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.34			1.37			1.42			1.38			1.52	(b)
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)		1.34			1.37			1.42			1.38			1.46
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.30			0.90			0.94			2.21			1.06
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		40.4			35.2			92.0			107.6			126.8
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	544.3		$	576.5		$	340.7		$	140.3		$	78.8

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Excludes effect of deferred expense reimbursement. See Note 3 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

(c) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is MFS^® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A and B Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to foreign currency transactions, forward transactions, certain foreign capital gain tax, passive foreign investment companies (PFICs), deferred trustees’ compensation, capital loss carryforwards and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Securities Lending - The Portfolio may lend its portfolio securities to certain qualified brokers who borrow securities in order to complete certain securities transactions. By lending its portfolio securities, the Portfolio attempts to increase its net investment income through the receipt of income on the loaned securities. Any gain or loss in the market price of the loaned securities that might occur and any interest earned or dividends declared during the term of the loan would accrue to the account of the Portfolio.

The Trust has entered into a securities lending arrangement with the custodian, State Street Bank and Trust Company (the “custodian”). Under this arrangement, the custodian is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral at least equal to 102% of the market value of the loaned

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

securities (105% for foreign equity securities), at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities must be maintained for the duration of the loan. Cash collateral is generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The Navigator Portfolio is a registered money market fund which invests in a variety of high quality U.S. dollar-denominated instruments. If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower shall be required to deliver, by the close of business on the following business day, an additional amount of collateral so that the total amount of posted collateral equals at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of net income (income after the deduction of expenses and fees of the Navigator Portfolio) on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the custodian and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by U.S. Treasuries, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the custodian. The risks associated with lending portfolio securities include, but are not limited to, possible delays in receiving additional collateral or in the recovery of the loaned securities, possible loss of rights in the collateral should the borrower fail financially, as well as risk of loss in the value of the collateral or the value of the investments made with the collateral. Net interest income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2011 is disclosed in the footnotes to the Statement of Operations. Any outstanding loans by the Portfolio at December 31, 2011 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments.

Foreign Currency Translation - The books and records of the Portfolio are maintained in U.S. dollars. The values of securities, currencies and other assets and liabilities denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars are translated into U.S. dollars based upon foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period. Purchases and sales of investment securities, income and expenses are translated on the respective dates of such transactions. Since the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, it is not practical to isolate that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates from that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities. Such fluctuations are included in the net realized and unrealized gain or loss on investments.

Net realized foreign exchange gains or losses arise from activity in forward foreign currency exchange contracts, sales of foreign currency, currency gains or losses realized between the trade and settlement dates on securities transactions, and the difference between the amounts of dividends, interest, and foreign withholding taxes recorded by the Portfolio and the U.S. dollar equivalent of the amounts actually received or paid by the Portfolio. Gains and losses attributable to foreign currency exchange rates on sales of securities are recorded as Net realized gains and losses on investments. Net unrealized foreign exchange gains and losses arise from changes in the value of assets and liabilities, other than investment securities, resulting from changes in foreign exchange rates.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with Massachusetts Financial Services Company (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by  the Adviser for the year ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$10,076,590		1.05	%	First $250 Million
		1.00	%	$250 Million to $500 Million
		0.85	%	$500 Million to $1 Billion
		0.75	%	Over $1 Billion

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Distribution Agreement and Plan - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A and Class B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B distribution plan provides that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B Shares. However, under the Class B distribution agreement, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B distribution plan are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations. Under the terms of the Class B distribution plan and distribution agreement, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. as designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases		Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government	U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government
$—	$511,987,803	$—	$441,479,425

During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio engaged in security sale transactions with other affiliated portfolios. These sale transactions amounted to $11,103,538 and resulted in a realized gain of $1,823,763.

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments

Futures Contracts - The Portfolio may buy and sell futures contracts (on recognized exchanges) as a hedge, to maintain investment exposure to a target asset class or to enhance return. The Portfolio may be subject to fluctuations in equity prices, interest rates, commodity prices and foreign currency exchange rates in the normal course of pursuing its investment objective. Futures contracts are standardized agreements to buy or sell a security, or deliver a final cash settlement price in connection with an index, interest rate, currency, or other asset. The Portfolio must deposit an amount (“initial margin”) equal to a certain percentage of the face value of the futures contract. The initial margin may be in the form of cash or securities which is returned when the Portfolio’s obligations under the contract have been satisfied. If cash is deposited as the initial margin, it is

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments - continued

shown as “restricted cash” on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Futures contracts are marked-to-market daily and subsequent payments (“variation margin”) are made or received by the Portfolio depending on the daily fluctuations in the value of the futures contracts. These amounts are reflected as receivables or payables on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Risks of entering into futures contracts (and related options) include the possibility that the market for these instruments may be illiquid and that a change in the value of the contract or option may not correlate perfectly with changes in the value of the underlying instrument. Futures contracts are exchange traded and the exchange’s clearinghouse, as counterparty to all exchange traded futures, guarantees the futures contracts against default.

During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio entered into equity index futures contracts which were subject to equity price risk. During the period April 26 through April 28, 2011, the Portfolio had bought and sold $83,585,867 in equity index futures contracts. At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not have any open futures contracts. For the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had a realized loss in the amount of $(296,809) which is shown under Net realized gain on futures contracts in the Statement of Operations.

6. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

7. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$17,055,473	$	9,412,407	$	—	$	—	$	17,055,473	$	9,412,407

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Depreciation			Loss Carryforwards			Total
$9,849,066	$	—	$	(61,597,896	)	$	(93,348,133	)	$	(145,096,963	)

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses.

As of December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and the pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards expiring on December 31, 2017 were $93,348,133.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of MFS^® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of MFS^® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of MFS^® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 23, 2012

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the MFS Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the MFS Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and Lipper Index for the one- year period ended June 30, 2011, and underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and Lipper Index for the three- and five- year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board further considered that the Portfolio outperformed its benchmark, the MSCI EMF Index, for the one- year period ended September 30, 2011, and underperformed its benchmark for the three- and five-year periods ended September 30, 2011. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance, including its more recent improved performance. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s performance was being reasonably addressed and/or monitored.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to

25

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the MFS Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the Expense Group median, the Expense Universe median and Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were above the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

26

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the MFS Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee and sub-advisory fee each contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s management fees are below the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

27

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust MFS^® Research International Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Research International Portfolio

Managed by Massachusetts Financial Services Company

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A, B, and E shares of the MFS^® Research International Portfolio returned -10.44%, -10.71%, and -10.62%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmarks, the MSCI EAFE Index¹ and the MSCI AC World (ex-U.S.) Index², returned -12.14% and -13.71%, respectively.

Market Environment

Early in 2011, the U.S. Federal Reserve (the Fed) responded to weak economic growth by loosening monetary policy further. More easing by the Fed improved market sentiment and drove risk-asset prices markedly higher. The December 2010 agreement on a surprisingly large (relative to expectations) expansionary U.S. fiscal package also boosted sentiment. During the subsequent several months, the renewed positive market sentiment, coupled with better indications of global macroeconomic activity, pushed many asset valuations to post-crisis highs. At the same time, the yields of the perceived “safest” global sovereign credits rose, indicating a renewed risk-seeking environment.

However, towards the middle of the period, a weakening macroeconomic backdrop and renewed concerns over peripheral Eurozone sovereign debt caused a flight-to-quality move that pushed high-quality sovereign bond yields lower. In the U.S., concerns about the budget deficit and the long-term sustainability of the trend in U.S. fiscal policy resulted in one agency downgrading U.S. credit quality. Amidst this turmoil, global equity markets declined sharply. As a result of these developments, global consumer and producer sentiment indicators fell precipitously and highly-rated sovereign bond yields hit multi-decade lows. Towards the end of the reporting period, uncertainty in financial markets spiked higher as markets more seriously contemplated the possible failure of the Eurozone.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

Stock selection in the Materials sector contributed to the Portfolio’s performance relative to the MSCI EAFE Index. The timing of the Portfolio’s ownership in shares of Australian mining companies Iluka Resources and BHP Billiton boosted relative performance.

Stock selection in the Utilities sector also had a positive impact on relative returns. Not holding shares of electric power company Tokyo Electric Power (Japan) aided relative results as the stock underperformed the benchmark over the reporting period.

Elsewhere, holdings of telecommunication services provider China Unicom (Hong Kong), convenience store chain Lawson (Japan), and Swiss pharmaceutical and diagnostic company Roche Holding supported relative results. The Portfolio’s overweight positions in parcel delivery services company Yamato Holdings (Japan), Japanese pharmaceutical company Santen Pharmaceutical, tobacco company Japan Tobacco (Japan), and oil and gas exploration company Inpex (Japan) also benefited relative performance.

Stock selection in the Financials sector detracted from relative performance. Holdings of poor-performing Austrian financial services firm Erste Group Bank, banking and treasury management firm ICICI Bank (India), financial services firm Banco Santander (Brazil), and global banking group BNP Paribas (France) were among the Portfolio’s top relative detractors for the reporting period.

Stocks in other sectors that held back relative performance included shares of information technology products and electronics maker Acer (Taiwan), diversified mining company Teck Resources (Canada), and copy machine manufacturer Konica Minolta Holdings (Japan). Additionally, not holding shares of pharmaceutical firm GlaxoSmithKline (United Kingdom), prepackaged foods producer Unilever (Netherlands), and tobacco distributor British American Tobacco (United Kingdom) hurt relative results as all three stocks outperformed the benchmark over the reporting period.

The Research International strategy is managed generally as a sector-neutral portfolio that emphasizes bottom-up fundamental analysis. The focus is on high quality companies whose growth rates and fundamentals are not properly reflected in their valuation. Our sector-neutral approach relies on stock picking to drive alpha, therefore regional and industry allocation is strictly a by-product of where our analysts are finding attractive investment opportunities.

We were fairly active in Financials during the reporting period as we increased exposure to Australia and Japan while continuing to reduce our allocations to Europe and select emerging markets. Specifically, we believed Australian banks had less asset quality risk than their European counterparts, are well capitalized, provide attractive dividend yields, and trade at reasonable levels. We also added to Japanese banks as they have little or no exposure to European sovereign debt or the Euro and have already gone through their deleveraging cycle. Conversely, we’ve lowered our exposure to emerging market banks. We’ve exited Russia and lowered our exposure to both India and China on near term concerns over asset quality. Lastly, we’ve increased our exposure to insurance companies as they continued to demonstrate good fundamentals, possess clean investment books, and have little capital raising risk.

In Health Care we trimmed some of the more defensive pure-pharma names in favor of more cyclical ones. We continued to be bottom-up driven, although we actively look for opportunities to build positions in some of the higher-quality, more cyclical names that might arise as a result of any potential future economic weakness. We also continued to focus on names whose valuation appeared attractive.

As a result of relative normalized valuations in the capital goods sector, we continued to increase our exposure to industry leaders that have proven they can manage upturns and downturns with lower cyclicality than the market implies. These companies have also demonstrated stability and sustainability while providing a growth option which provided an attractive balance as the macro and political economies around the world debated between austerity and monetization throughout the year.

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Research International Portfolio

Managed by Massachusetts Financial Services Company

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

In Energy, the Japanese earthquake early in the year all but removed the global gas glut outside the U.S. As a result, we continued to see growth in the gas complex as demand remained strong and markets tightened. At year end, we were overweight the independent gas companies and underweight the integrated oil companies that are ex-growth yet provide an attractive dividend yield. Lastly, towards the latter part of the year concerns over the macro environment caused us to take profits in some of our oil service names as we believed we may be provided with a more favorable entry point in the not too distant future.

Team Managed

The Portfolio is managed by a committee of research analysts under the general supervision of Jose Luis Garcia and Thomas Melendez.

Massachusetts Financial Services Company

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Royal Dutch Shell plc - A Shares		3.1
Nestle S.A.		3.1
Roche Holding AG		2.5
Bayer AG		2.0
Vodafone Group plc		2.0
Standard Chartered plc		1.9
Westpac Banking Corp.		1.8
Danone		1.8
BP plc		1.8
Rio Tinto plc		1.7

Top Countries

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Japan		22.3
United Kingdom		19.6
Switzerland		10.0
Germany		8.1
France		7.7
Australia		6.0
Netherlands		5.3
Hong Kong		4.5
United States		2.8
Brazil		2.3

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Research International Portfolio

MFS^® Research International Portfolio managed by

Massachusetts Financial Services Company vs. MSCI EAFE Index¹
and MSCI AC World (ex-U.S.) Index²

	Average Annual Return3 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 year		5 Year		10 Year
MFS®Research International Portfolio—Class A		-10.44%		-2.85%		6.03%
Class B		-10.71%		-3.10%		5.77%
Class E		-10.62%		-3.00%		5.88%
MSCI EAFE Index1		-12.14%		-4.72%		4.67%
MSCI AC World (ex-U.S.) Index2		-13.71%		-2.92%		6.31%

The performance of Class B shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹ The MSCI Europe, Australasia and Far East Index (“MSCI EAFE Index”) is an unmanaged free float-adjusted market capitalization index that is designed to measure developed market equity performance, excluding the U.S. & Canada. The index returns shown above were calculated with net dividends: they reflect the reinvestment of dividends after the deduction of the maximum possible withholding taxes.

² The MSCI AC World Index (ex-U.S.) Index (“MSCI ACWI (ex-U.S.) Index”) is an unmanaged free float-adjusted market capitalization index that is designed to measure equity market performance in the global developed and emerging markets, excluding the U.S. The index returns shown above were calculated with net dividends: they reflect the reinvestment of dividends after the deduction of the maximum possible withholding taxes.

³ “Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The indexes do not include fees or expenses and are not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Research International Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A(a)
Actual		0.74%	$	1,000.00	$	839.20	$	3.43
Hypothetical*		0.74%		1,000.00		1,021.47		3.77
Class B(a)
Actual		0.99%	$	1,000.00	$	838.00	$	4.59
Hypothetical*		0.99%		1,000.00		1,020.21		5.04
Class E(a)
Actual		0.89%	$	1,000.00	$	838.60	$	4.12
Hypothetical*		0.89%		1,000.00		1,020.71		4.53

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

(a) The annualized expense ratio reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 3 to the Financial Statements.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Research International Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—98.7% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Australia—6.0%
Iluka Resources, Ltd. (a)		1,390,766	$	22,020,553
National Australia Bank, Ltd.		1,657,055		39,588,909
Newcrest Mining, Ltd.		495,772		15,050,623
Nufarm, Ltd.* (a)		2,863,519		12,187,782
QBE Insurance Group, Ltd.		1,243,581		16,499,897
Westpac Banking Corp. (a)		2,291,090		46,865,414
				152,213,178
Brazil—2.3%
Diagnosticos da America S.A.		1,837,300		15,267,739
Itau Unibanco Banco Multiplo S.A. (ADR)		879,120		16,316,467
Tim Participacoes S.A. (ADR) (a)		605,738		15,628,040
Tractebel Energia S.A.		738,250		11,857,912
				59,070,158
Canada—1.1%
Bankers Petroleum, Ltd.* (a)		1,304,776		5,697,208
Teck Resources, Ltd.—Class B (a)		645,562		22,797,985
				28,495,193
China—0.5%
China Construction Bank Corp.		19,078,804		13,338,196
Czech Republic—1.5%
CEZ A.S.		529,894		21,229,803
Komercni Banka A.S.		90,931		15,435,820
				36,665,623
Finland—1.1%
Fortum Oyj		877,451		18,710,344
Outotec Oyj (a)		210,761		9,888,830
				28,599,174
France—7.7%
BNP Paribas S.A.		574,678		22,547,942
Danone S.A.		735,117		46,278,316
Dassault Systemes S.A. (a)		266,265		21,367,505
Legrand S.A.		241,228		7,745,164
LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton S.A.		161,194		22,761,266
Publicis Groupe S.A.		403,499		18,559,945
Sanofi		246,104		18,048,016
Schneider Electric S.A.		495,586		25,957,747
Technip S.A.		129,560		12,136,189
				195,402,090
Germany—8.1%
Bayer AG		808,789		51,823,907
Germany—(Continued)
Bayerische Motoren Werke (BMW) AG		409,187	$	27,417,568
Deutsche Boerse AG*		154,256		8,105,254
GSW Immobilien AG*		245,603		7,125,039
Linde AG		284,380		42,400,524
Rhoen-Klinikum AG		849,235		16,215,055
Siemens AG		444,954		42,651,002
Symrise AG		348,190		9,312,828
				205,051,177
Hong Kong—4.4%
AIA Group, Ltd.		7,886,400		24,579,889
China Unicom (Hong Kong), Ltd. (a)		10,810,850		22,873,827
Hang Lung Properties, Ltd.		5,380,363		15,296,375
Hutchison Whampoa, Ltd.		1,524,000		12,750,535
Li & Fung, Ltd. (a)		8,761,540		16,106,915
Sands China, Ltd.*		5,652,807		16,021,027
Sinotruk Hong Kong, Ltd. (a)		8,872,864		4,951,863
				112,580,431
India—1.3%
HDFC Bank, Ltd. (ADR)		322,785		8,482,790
ICICI Bank, Ltd.		517,853		6,665,062
Reliance Industries, Ltd.		1,153,932		15,057,277
Steel Authority of India, Ltd.		1,973,145		3,013,828
				33,218,957
Italy—0.9%
Telecom Italia RSP		17,001,444		15,205,060
Telecom Italia S.p.A.		6,023,603		6,446,166
				21,651,226
Japan—22.2%
Aeon Credit Service Co., Ltd. (a)		1,122,600		17,711,681
Canon, Inc. (a)		682,600		30,196,440
Chugoku Marine Paints, Ltd.		1,031,441		6,383,881
Denso Corp.		729,700		20,116,026
East Japan Railway Co.		263,500		16,762,494
GLORY, Ltd.		943,400		20,305,191
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (a)		794,900		24,200,231
Inpex Corp.		5,759		36,206,520
Japan Tobacco, Inc.		6,253		29,383,575
JGC Corp.		1,238,000		29,669,324
KDDI Corp. (a)		4,147		26,689,091
Konica Minolta Holdings, Inc. (a)		2,361,000		17,576,469
Lawson, Inc. (a)		466,000		29,073,179
Miraca Holdings, Inc.		769,300		30,640,477
Mitsubishi Corp.		1,000,097		20,161,736
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc.		5,678,500		24,083,253

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Research International Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Japan—(Continued)
Nippon Paint Co., Ltd. (a)		1,117,000	$	7,725,836
Nippon Television Network Corp.		131,060		20,040,228
Nomura Research Institute, Ltd.		620,300		14,005,083
Santen Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.		735,400		30,293,056
Sony Financial Holdings, Inc. (a)		774,700		11,394,794
Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd.		3,346,000		6,074,740
Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, Inc.		1,322,300		36,778,369
Tokyo Gas Co., Ltd.		5,187,000		23,829,767
Yamato Holdings Co., Ltd.		2,065,300		34,762,832
				564,064,273
Mexico—0.4%
Kimberly-Clark de Mexico, S.A.B. de C.V.—Class A		1,959,930		10,660,534
Netherlands—5.2%
Akzo Nobel N.V.		763,970		36,840,731
ASML Holding N.V.		242,416		10,182,206
Heineken N.V.		842,825		38,996,544
ING Groep N.V.*		2,885,268		20,607,146
Koninklijke KPN N.V.		1,803,236		21,576,992
SNS REAAL N.V.*		2,168,670		4,714,584
				132,918,203
Singapore—0.6%
Keppel Corp., Ltd. (a)		1,941,500		13,902,146
South Korea—0.5%
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.		14,011		12,869,466
Spain—0.8%
Inditex S.A.		240,965		19,731,675
Sweden—1.7%
Hennes & Mauritz AB—B Shares		463,850		14,897,250
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson— Class B		2,713,489		27,588,905
				42,486,155
Switzerland—10.0%
Credit Suisse Group AG*		716,700		16,847,162
Julius Baer Group, Ltd.*		457,595		17,829,046
Nestle S.A.		1,349,180		77,600,666
Roche Holding AG		367,974		62,343,708
Schindler Holding AG		255,037		29,653,106
Sonova Holding AG*		138,811		14,542,801
Swiss Re, Ltd.*		677,238		34,553,336
				253,369,825
Taiwan—0.8%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd.		8,333,753	$	20,840,897
Thailand—0.2%
Siam Commercial Bank Public Co., Ltd.		1,449,800		5,353,461
United Kingdom—19.6%
AMEC plc		802,500		11,263,276
Amlin plc		276,509		1,343,995
Barclays plc		8,508,111		23,056,389
BG Group plc		1,151,507		24,567,258
BP plc		6,342,568		45,246,480
Cairn Energy plc*		2,538,469		10,439,526
Compass Group plc		1,100,072		10,419,632
GKN plc		4,295,716		12,143,234
Hiscox, Ltd.		1,770,446		10,242,651
HSBC Holdings plc		4,051,942		30,770,063
International Power plc (a)		3,873,344		20,270,882
Reckitt Benckiser Group plc		564,387		27,821,901
Rio Tinto plc		883,420		42,767,802
Rolls-Royce Holdings plc*		1,861,078		21,503,917
Royal Dutch Shell plc—A Shares		2,161,803		79,501,738
Standard Chartered plc		2,242,910		48,851,085
Tesco plc		4,064,083		25,450,431
Vodafone Group plc		18,386,311		51,065,104
				496,725,364
United States—1.8%
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp.—Class A*		210,350		13,527,608
Joy Global, Inc. (a)		278,570		20,884,393
Synthes, Inc. (144A)		60,983		10,226,473
				44,638,474
Total Common Stocks (Cost $2,571,750,625)				2,503,845,876
Short-Term Investments—8.1%
Mutual Funds—7.1%
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (b)		180,715,754		180,715,754

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Research International Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Short-Term Investments—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount		Value
Repurchase Agreement—1.0%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $26,278,029 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $14,220,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. at 0.625% due 12/23/13 with a value of $14,202,225; by $12,370,000 U.S. Treasury Note at 1.000% due 01/15/14 with a value of $12,605,253.	$	26,278,000	$	26,278,000
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $206,993,754)				206,993,754
Total Investments—106.8% (Cost $2,778,744,379#)				2,710,839,630
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(6.8)%				(173,478,559	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	2,537,361,071

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $2,833,660,004. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $179,665,056 and $(302,485,430), respectively, resulting in net unrealized depreciation of $(122,820,374) for federal income tax purposes.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities loaned was $173,370,850 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $180,715,754 and non-cash collateral with a value of $352,170. The cash collateral is invested in a money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The non-cash collateral received consists primarily of government securities and bank letters of credit,and are held for the benefit of the Portfolio at the Portfolio’s custodian. The Portfolio cannot repledge or resell this collateral. As such, this collateral is excluded from the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

(b) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities lending transactions.

(144A)— Securities exempt from registration under Rule 144A of the Securities Act of 1933. These securities may be resold in transactions exempt from registration, normally to qualified institutional buyers. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of 144A securities was $10,226,473, which is 0.4% of net assets.

(ADR)— An American Depositary Receipt is a certificate issued by a custodian bank representing the right to receive securities of the foreign issuer described. Trading on exchanges not located in the United States or Canada significantly influences the value of ADRs.

Ten Largest  Industries as of December 31, 2011 (Unaudited)
	% of Net Assets
Commercial Banks		13.3
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels		8.5
Pharmaceuticals		6.4
Food Products		4.9
Chemicals		4.5
Metals & Mining		4.4
Insurance		3.9
Wireless Telecommunication Services		3.7
Machinery		3.0
Industrial Conglomerates		2.7

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Research International Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Common Stocks
Australia	$	—	$	152,213,178	$	—	$	152,213,178
Brazil		59,070,158		—		—		59,070,158
Canada		28,495,193		—		—		28,495,193
China		—		13,338,196		—		13,338,196
Czech Republic		—		36,665,623		—		36,665,623
Finland		—		28,599,174		—		28,599,174
France		—		195,402,090		—		195,402,090
Germany		—		205,051,177		—		205,051,177
Hong Kong		—		112,580,431		—		112,580,431
India		8,482,790		24,736,167		—		33,218,957
Italy		—		21,651,226		—		21,651,226
Japan		—		564,064,273		—		564,064,273
Mexico		10,660,534		—		—		10,660,534
Netherlands		—		132,918,203		—		132,918,203
Singapore		—		13,902,146		—		13,902,146
South Korea		—		12,869,466		—		12,869,466
Spain		—		19,731,675		—		19,731,675
Sweden		—		42,486,155		—		42,486,155
Switzerland		—		253,369,825		—		253,369,825
Taiwan		—		20,840,897		—		20,840,897
Thailand		5,353,461		—		—		5,353,461
United Kingdom		—		496,725,364		—		496,725,364
United States		34,412,001		10,226,473		—		44,638,474
Total Common Stocks		146,474,137		2,357,371,739		—		2,503,845,876
Short-Term Investments
Mutual Funds		180,715,754		—		—		180,715,754
Repurchase Agreement		—		26,278,000		—		26,278,000
Total Short-Term Investments		180,715,754		26,278,000		—		206,993,754
Total Investments	$	327,189,891	$	2,383,649,739	$	—	$	2,710,839,630

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Research International Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)(b)	$	2,684,561,630
Repurchase Agreement		26,278,000
Cash denominated in foreign currencies (c)		44,175
Receivable for investments sold		6,598,706
Receivable for shares sold		1,562,708
Dividends receivable		5,134,388
Total assets		2,724,179,607
Liabilities
Due to custodian		1,888
Payables for:
Investments purchased		3,780,628
Shares redeemed		431,194
Collateral for securities loaned		180,715,754
Foreign taxes		53,110
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		1,376,609
Distribution and service fees - Class B		152,772
Distribution and service fees - Class E		1,583
Administration fees		10,441
Custodian and accounting fees		133,783
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		135,707
Total liabilities		186,818,536
Net Assets	$	2,537,361,071
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	3,104,550,558
Accumulated net realized loss		(552,730,365	)
Unrealized depreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		(67,971,160	)
Undistributed net investment income		53,512,038
Net Assets	$	2,537,361,071
Net Assets
Class A	$	1,804,342,208
Class B		720,675,775
Class E		12,343,088
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		199,875,957
Class B		80,536,130
Class E		1,373,430
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	9.03
Class B		8.95
Class E		8.99

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreement, was $2,752,466,379.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $173,370,850.

(c) Identified cost of cash denominated in foreign currencies was $44,442.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	75,348,117
Interest (b)		2,497,851
Total investment income		77,845,968
Expenses
Management fees		17,833,299
Administration fees		128,644
Custodian and accounting fees		1,831,409
Distribution and service fees - Class B		1,964,291
Distribution and service fees - Class E		22,860
Audit and tax services		45,118
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Shareholder reporting		167,197
Insurance		22,776
Miscellaneous		25,184
Total expenses		22,109,488
Less management fee waiver		(1,112,815	)
Less broker commission recapture		(4,006	)
Net expenses		20,992,667
Net investment income		56,853,301
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments, Futures Contracts and Foreign Currency Transactions
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments		28,661,164
Futures contracts		28,095
Foreign currency transactions		(667,888	)
Net realized gain on investments, futures contracts and foreign currency transactions (c)		28,021,371
Net change in unrealized depreciation on:
Investments (d)		(388,583,238	)
Foreign currency transactions		(227,824	)
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		(388,811,062	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments, futures contracts and foreign currency transactions		(360,789,691	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(303,936,390	)

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $7,756,514.

(b) Includes net income on securities loaned of $2,495,562.

(c) Net of foreign capital gain taxes of $128,746.

(d) Includes foreign capital gains tax of $53,110.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Research International Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	56,853,301		$	37,779,393
Net realized gain (loss) on investments, futures contracts and foreign currency transactions		28,021,371			(11,084,056	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments and foreign currency transactions		(388,811,062	)		234,879,476
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations		(303,936,390	)		261,574,813
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(35,409,840	)		(20,180,205	)
Class B		(14,097,829	)		(11,984,940	)
Class E		(302,084	)		(321,360	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(49,809,753	)		(32,486,505	)
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		390,341,022			490,284,691
Net Increase in Net Assets		36,594,879			719,372,999
Net assets at beginning of period		2,500,766,192			1,781,393,193
Net assets at end of period	$	2,537,361,071		$	2,500,766,192
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	53,512,038		$	42,227,707

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		51,646,902		$	530,293,779			63,469,147		$	580,318,884
Reinvestments		3,300,078			35,409,840			2,162,937			20,180,205
Redemptions		(21,145,923	)		(221,158,018	)		(11,367,463	)		(103,473,090	)
Net increase		33,801,057		$	344,545,601			54,264,621		$	497,025,999
Class B
Sales		9,093,859		$	88,970,038			11,385,497		$	103,776,222
Fund subscription in kind (a)		6,103,052			67,072,542			—			—
Reinvestments		1,323,740			14,097,829			1,292,874			11,984,940
Redemptions		(12,068,850	)		(121,089,420	)		(13,163,041	)		(119,063,199	)
Net increase (decrease)		4,451,801		$	49,050,989			(484,670	)	$	(3,302,037	)
Class E
Sales		156,625		$	1,595,657			279,011		$	2,564,292
Reinvestments		28,259			302,084			34,592			321,360
Redemptions		(509,050	)		(5,153,309	)		(694,568	)		(6,324,923	)
Net decrease		(324,166	)	$	(3,255,568	)		(380,965	)	$	(3,439,271	)
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	390,341,022					$	490,284,691

(a) Includes cash and securities amounting to $1,598,289 and $65,474,253, respectively. Securities were valued at market as of April 29, 2011.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Research International Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.28		$	9.38		$	7.41		$	14.43		$	15.04
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.22			0.18			0.17			0.30			0.22
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(1.26	)		0.90			2.07			(5.76	)		1.68
Total from investment operations		(1.04	)		1.08			2.24			(5.46	)		1.90
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.21	)		(0.18	)		(0.27	)		(0.26	)		(0.24	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(1.30	)		(2.27	)
Total distributions		(0.21	)		(0.18	)		(0.27	)		(1.56	)		(2.51	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	9.03		$	10.28		$	9.38		$	7.41		$	14.43
Total Return (%)		(10.44	)		11.65			31.93			(42.25	)		13.60
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.77			0.78			0.81			0.77			0.79
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.73			0.75			0.80			0.77			0.79
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.24			1.91			2.20			2.85			1.54
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		39.3			50.2			71.9			75.4			65.5
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	1,804.3		$	1,707.5		$	1,049.1		$	840.8		$	959.1

	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.20		$	9.31		$	7.35		$	14.32		$	14.95
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.20			0.15			0.15			0.27			0.19
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(1.26	)		0.90			2.06			(5.71	)		1.65
Total from investment operations		(1.06	)		1.05			2.21			(5.44	)		1.84
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.19	)		(0.16	)		(0.25	)		(0.23	)		(0.20	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(1.30	)		(2.27	)
Total distributions		(0.19	)		(0.16	)		(0.25	)		(1.53	)		(2.47	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	8.95		$	10.20		$	9.31		$	7.35		$	14.32
Total Return (%)		(10.71	)		11.40			31.57			(42.36	)		13.29
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.02			1.03			1.06			1.01			1.04
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.98			1.00			1.05			1.01			1.04
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.02			1.65			1.93			2.54			1.31
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		39.3			50.2			71.9			75.4			65.5
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	720.7		$	775.8		$	712.9		$	525.7		$	842.8

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Research International Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.24		$	9.34		$	7.37		$	14.36		$	14.99
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.21			0.16			0.16			0.29			0.20
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(1.27	)		0.90			2.06			(5.74	)		1.66
Total from investment operations		(1.06	)		1.06			2.22			(5.45	)		1.86
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.19	)		(0.16	)		(0.25	)		(0.24	)		(0.22	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(1.30	)		(2.27	)
Total distributions		(0.19	)		(0.16	)		(0.25	)		(1.54	)		(2.49	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	8.99		$	10.24		$	9.34		$	7.37		$	14.36
Total Return (%)		(10.62	)		11.54			31.74			(42.33	)		13.38
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.92			0.93			0.96			0.91			0.94
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.88			0.90			0.95			0.91			0.94
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.14			1.79			2.07			2.66			1.41
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		39.3			50.2			71.9			75.4			65.5
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	12.3		$	17.4		$	19.4		$	19.2		$	32.6

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Research International Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is MFS^® Research International Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A, B and E Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Research International Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to forward transactions, broker commission recapture, foreign currency transactions, certain foreign capital gain tax, passive foreign investment companies (PFICs), deferred trustees’ compensation, capital loss carryforwards and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Securities Lending - The Portfolio may lend its portfolio securities to certain qualified brokers who borrow securities in order to complete certain securities transactions. By lending its portfolio securities, the Portfolio attempts to increase its net investment income through the receipt of income on the loaned securities. Any gain or loss in the market price of the loaned securities that might occur and any interest earned or dividends declared during the term of the loan would accrue to the account of the Portfolio.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Research International Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

The Trust has entered into a securities lending arrangement with the custodian, State Street Bank and Trust Company (the “custodian”). Under this arrangement, the custodian is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral at least equal to 102% of the market value of the loaned securities (105% for foreign equity securities), at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities must be maintained for the duration of the loan. Cash collateral is generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The Navigator Portfolio is a registered money market fund which invests in a variety of high quality U.S. dollar-denominated instruments. If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower shall be required to deliver, by the close of business on the following business day, an additional amount of collateral so that the total amount of posted collateral equals at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of net income (income after the deduction of expenses and fees of the Navigator Portfolio) on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the custodian and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by U.S. Treasuries, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the custodian. The risks associated with lending portfolio securities include, but are not limited to, possible delays in receiving additional collateral or in the recovery of the loaned securities, possible loss of rights in the collateral should the borrower fail financially, as well as risk of loss in the value of the collateral or the value of the investments made with the collateral. Net interest income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2011 is disclosed in the footnotes to the Statement of Operations. Any outstanding loans by the Portfolio at December 31, 2011 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments.

Foreign Currency Translation - The books and records of the Portfolio are maintained in U.S. dollars. The values of securities, currencies and other assets and liabilities denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars are translated into U.S. dollars based upon foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period. Purchases and sales of investment securities, income and expenses are translated on the respective dates of such transactions. Since the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, it is not practical to isolate that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates from that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities. Such fluctuations are included in the net realized and unrealized gain or loss on investments.

Net realized foreign exchange gains or losses arise from activity in forward foreign currency exchange contracts, sales of foreign currency, currency gains or losses realized between the trade and settlement dates on securities transactions, and the difference between the amounts of dividends, interest, and foreign withholding taxes recorded by the Portfolio and the U.S. dollar equivalent of the amounts actually received or paid by the Portfolio. Gains and losses attributable to foreign currency exchange rates on sales of securities are recorded as Net realized gains and losses on investments. Net unrealized foreign exchange gains and losses arise from changes in the value of assets and liabilities, other than investment securities, resulting from changes in foreign exchange rates.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a sub custodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

Directed Brokerage Agreement - The Trust has entered into a directed brokerage arrangement with State Street Global Markets (“SSGM”). Under the arrangement, the Portfolio directs certain trades to SSGM in return for a recapture credit. SSGM issues a cash rebate to the Portfolio. Amounts paid to the Portfolio are shown separately as broker commission recapture on the Statement of Operations of the Portfolio. Additionally, these amounts have been excluded from the calculation of the ratio of net expenses to average net assets presented in the Financial Highlights for each share class.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with Massachusetts Financial Services Company (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Research International Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by  the Adviser for the year ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$17,833,299		0.80	%	First $200 Million
		0.75	%	$200 Million to $500 Million
		0.70	%	$500 Million to $1 Billion
		0.65	%	Over $1 Billion

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Management Fee Waiver - Effective November 12, 2009, the Subadviser reduced the subadvisory fee it charges to the Adviser for managing the Portfolio. This fee change reduced the subadvisory fee charged on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets in excess of $1.5 billion. In connection with this change in the subadvisory fee, the Adviser contractually agreed, effective May 1, 2011, to waive a portion of the management fee through April 30, 2012. This waiver reduced the management fee to the annual rate of 0.55% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets in excess of $1.5 billion. This arrangement was voluntary for the period from January 1, 2011 through April 30, 2011. Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as a management fee waiver in the Statement of Operations.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Distribution Agreements and Plans - The Trust has distribution agreements with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A, Class B and Class E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B and Class E distribution plans provide that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% and 0.25%, respectively, of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B and Class E Shares. However, under the Class B and Class E distribution agreements, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B and Class E distribution plans are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% and 0.15% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares, respectively. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B and Class E distribution plans and distribution agreements, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B and Class E Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. as designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Research International Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases		Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government	U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government
$—	$1,350,063,407	$—	$1,031,453,618

During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio engaged in security purchase transactions with other affiliated portfolios. These purchase transactions amounted to $51,909,748. The Portfolio also engaged in security transactions with other accounts managed by Massachusetts Financial Services Company that amounted to $989,786 in Sales of investments which is included above.

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments

Futures Contracts - The Portfolio may buy and sell futures contracts (on recognized exchanges) as a hedge, to maintain investment exposure to a target asset class or to enhance return. The Portfolio may be subject to fluctuations in equity prices, interest rates, commodity prices and foreign currency exchange rates in the normal course of pursuing its investment objective. Futures contracts are standardized agreements to buy or sell a security, or deliver a final cash settlement price in connection with an index, interest rate, currency, or other asset. The Portfolio must deposit an amount (“initial margin”) equal to a certain percentage of the face value of the futures contract. The initial margin may be in the form of cash or securities which is returned when the Portfolio’s obligations under the contract have been satisfied. If cash is deposited as the initial margin, it is shown as “restricted cash” on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Futures contracts are marked-to-market daily and subsequent payments (“variation margin”) are made or received by the Portfolio depending on the daily fluctuations in the value of the futures contracts. These amounts are reflected as receivables or payables on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Risks of entering into futures contracts (and related options) include the possibility that the market for these instruments may be illiquid and that a change in the value of the contract or option may not correlate perfectly with changes in the value of the underlying instrument. Futures contracts are exchange traded and the exchange’s clearinghouse, as counterparty to all exchange traded futures, guarantees the futures contracts against default.

During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio entered into equity index futures contracts which were subject to equity price risk. During the period April 28 through May 06, 2011, the Portfolio had bought and sold $6,132,328 in equity index futures contracts. At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not have any open futures contracts. For the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had realized gains in the amount of $28,095 which are shown under Net realized gain on futures contracts in the Statement of Operations.

6. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

7. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$49,809,753	$	32,486,505	$	—	$	—	$	49,809,753	$	32,486,505

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Research International Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

8. Income Tax Information - continued

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Depreciation			Loss Carryforwards			Total
$57,220,306	$	—	$	(122,875,495	)	$	(501,509,231	)	$	(567,164,420	)

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses.

As of December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and the pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards and expiration dates were as follows:

Expiring 12/31/2016	Expiring 12/31/2017		Expiring 12/31/2018		Total
$309,445,297	$	169,884,123	$	22,179,811	$	501,509,231

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Research International Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of MFS^® Research International Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of MFS^® Research International Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of MFS^® Research International Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 23, 2012

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Research International Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the MFS Research International Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Research International Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the MFS Research International Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the one-, three- and five-year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed its benchmark, the MSCI EAFE Index, for the one-, three- and five- year periods ended September 30, 2011. The Board further considered that the Portfolio outperformed its other benchmark, the MSCI AC World (ex.-U.S.) Index, for the one- year period ended September 30, 2011, and underperformed its other benchmark for the three- and five- year periods ended September 30, 2011. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s overall performance was satisfactory.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Research International Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the MFS Research International Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the Expense Group median, the Expense Universe median and the Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were above the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Adviser had negotiated a further reduction to the Portfolio’s sub-advisory fee schedule through the implementation of additional breakpoints effective January 1, 2012. The Board also noted that effective January 1, 2012, the Adviser will begin waiving an additional portion of its advisory fee in order for shareholders to benefit from the lower sub-advisory fee. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the

25

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

MFS^® Research International Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

With respect to the MFS Research International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee and sub-advisory fee each contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s management fees are above the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at asset levels up to $500 million, after which the Portfolio’s management fees are below the asset-weighted average of comparable funds. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

26

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Managed by Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc.

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A, B, and E shares of the Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio returned -6.67%, -6.92%, and -6.87%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Russell Midcap Growth Index¹, returned -1.65%.

Market Environment/Conditions

Equity markets began 2011 on a relatively optimistic note but suffered a stream of disappointments as the year progressed. The broad market’s relatively flat return (as measured by the S&P 500^® Index) for the year overall masked its more significant gyrations, as investors reacted to the worsening debt crisis in Europe, political strife in the Middle East, the natural disasters and nuclear crisis in Japan, political infighting in the United States (“U.S.”) as well as the downgrade of the U.S.’s credit rating by Standard & Poor’s. Developed world economies also looked weaker than expected – the U.S. economy was nearing its stall speed in the first half of 2011, while European economies were expected to fall into recession in 2012. Despite the barrage of negative news, the strength of U.S. corporate earnings remained a bright spot for investors during the year. Against this backdrop, investors’ appetite for risk was diminished. As such, mid- and small-cap stocks underperformed large-cap stocks (as measured by their respective Russell indexes) for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

In the Portfolio, the Technology sector was the most detrimental to relative performance during the period, due to the negative impact of stock selection and an overweight in the sector. The largest detractors were Yandex (Russia), an internet search engine not represented in the Index, and First Solar, a solar power systems manufacturer. Stock selection in the Materials sector was disadvantageous as well, with positions in rare earths miner Molycorp and potash producer Intrepid Potash contributing to relative losses. Stock selection in the Financials sector further hampered relative returns. Independent investment bank Greenhill & Co. and index data services provider MSCI led underperformance within the sector.

In contrast, the Industrials sector was the leading positive contributor to relative performance, driven by both stock selection and an overweight in the sector. Holdings in Fastenal, an industrial and construction tools and supplies maker, and in Verisk Analytics, a data provider serving the insurance industry, were the most additive to performance. Also benefiting performance were stock selection and an underweight in Telecommunication Services. Relative gains were led by exposure to Millicom International Cellular (Luxembourg), a telecom provider operating in the emerging markets and the Portfolio’s sole holding in the sector. Stock selection in the Utilities sector had a positive impact as well, due to the Portfolio’s only holding in the sector, Brookfield Infrastructure Partners (Bermuda), a global utilities, energy and transport, and timber operations company, which is not represented in the Index.

We look for high-quality growth companies that have these attributes: sustainable competitive advantages, business visibility, rising return on invested capital, free cash flow and a favorable risk/reward profile. We seek to find these companies through intense fundamental research. Our emphasis is on secular growth, and as a result short-term market events are not as meaningful in the stock selection process. There were no substantial changes made to the portfolio’s positioning during the year. We continue to focus on assessing company prospects over a three- to five-year time horizon and owning a portfolio of high-quality companies with diverse business drivers not tied to a particular market environment. As of December 31, 2011, Technology, Producer Durables, and Health Care were the largest sectors in the portfolio. Relative to the Index, the Portfolio’s largest underweights are in Consumer Durables, Energy, and Consumer Staples. The Technology sector was the Portfolio’s largest overweight, followed by Producer Durables and Utilities.

Dennis P. Lynch, Managing Director

David S. Cohen, Managing Director

Sam G. Chainani, Managing Director

Alexander T. Norton, Executive Director

Jason C. Yeung, Executive Director

Armistead Nash, Executive Director

Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc.

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Managed by Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc.

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

* This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Motorola Solutions, Inc.		4.4
Intuitive Surgical, Inc.		3.9
Fastenal Co.		3.6
Edenred		3.5
MSCI, Inc. - Class A		2.8
Verisk Analytics, Inc. - Class A		2.7
Mead Johnson Nutrition Co.		2.6
Weight Watchers International, Inc.		2.4
Range Resources Corp.		2.1
Expeditors International of Washington, Inc.		2.0

Top Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Non-Cyclical		31.6
Communications		21.8
Technology		13.1
Cyclical		8.1
Industrials		7.3
Energy		5.3
Basic Materials		4.0
Cash & Cash Equivalents		3.6
Financials		2.2
Utilities		1.7
Diversified		1.3

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio managed by

Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc. vs. Russell Midcap Growth Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 year		5 Year		10 Year		Since Inception3
Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio—Class A		-6.67%		5.19%		5.50%		—
Class B		-6.92%		4.92%		5.21%		—
Class E		-6.87%		—		—		7.04%
Russell MidCap Growth Index1		-1.65%		2.44%		5.29%		—

The performance of Class B shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹ The Russell Midcap Growth Index is an unmanaged measure of performance of those Russell Midcap companies (the 800 smallest companies in the Russell 1000 Index) with higher price-to-book ratios and higher forecasted growth values.

²“Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

³Inception of the Class A shares is 5/1/2001. Inception of the Class B shares is 2/12/2001. Inception of the Class E shares is 4/27/2010.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A(a)
Actual		0.73%	$	1,000.00	$	832.40	$	3.37
Hypothetical*		0.73%		1,000.00		1,021.52		3.72
Class B(a)
Actual		0.98%	$	1,000.00	$	831.30	$	4.52
Hypothetical*		0.98%		1,000.00		1,020.26		4.99
Class E(a)
Actual		0.88%	$	1,000.00	$	831.50	$	4.06
Hypothetical*		0.88%		1,000.00		1,020.76		4.48

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

(a) The annualized expense ratio reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 3 to the Financial Statements.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—94.5% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Air Freight & Logistics—3.1%
C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (a)		120,965	$	8,440,938
Expeditors International of Washington, Inc.		403,489		16,526,909
				24,967,847
Biotechnology—0.7%
Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc.—Class A* (a)		459,773		5,503,483
Capital Markets—0.6%
Greenhill & Co., Inc. (a)		143,068		5,203,384
Chemicals—2.5%
Intrepid Potash, Inc.* (a)		418,543		9,471,628
Rockwood Holdings, Inc.*		276,138		10,871,553
				20,343,181
Commercial Services & Supplies—6.0%
Covanta Holding Corp.		608,049		8,324,191
Edenred		1,136,085		27,914,973
Stericycle, Inc.* (a)		154,658		12,050,951
				48,290,115
Communications Equipment—4.4%
Motorola Solutions, Inc.		762,350		35,289,181
Construction Materials—1.1%
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (a)		119,274		8,994,452
Diversified Consumer Services—3.4%
New Oriental Education & Technology Group, Inc. (ADR)*		325,721		7,833,590
Weight Watchers International, Inc. (a)		350,611		19,287,111
				27,120,701
Diversified Financial Services—5.6%
IntercontinentalExchange, Inc.*		103,171		12,437,264
Leucadia National Corp.		453,945		10,322,709
MSCI, Inc.—Class A*		680,495		22,408,701
				45,168,674
Electric Utilities—1.7%
Brookfield Infrastructure Partners L.P.		506,839		14,039,440
Food & Staples Retailing—0.9%
Sun Art Retail Group, Ltd.*		6,022,500		7,533,201
Food Products—2.6%
Mead Johnson Nutrition Co.		306,504		21,066,020
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—5.9%
Gen-Probe, Inc.*		53,291	$	3,150,564
IDEXX Laboratories, Inc.* (a)		171,985		13,235,966
Intuitive Surgical, Inc.*		68,003		31,486,069
				47,872,599
Health Care Technology —0.9%
Athenahealth, Inc.* (a)		152,184		7,475,278
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—2.0%
Ctrip.com International, Ltd. (ADR)* (a)		304,049		7,114,747
Dunkin’ Brands Group, Inc.*		370,223		9,248,170
				16,362,917
Internet & Catalog Retail—3.2%
Groupon, Inc.* (a)		171,384		3,535,652
Groupon, Inc.—Class A* (b)		770,564		14,571,365
Netflix, Inc.*		115,182		7,980,961
				26,087,978
Internet Software & Services—7.5%
Akamai Technologies, Inc.*		446,506		14,413,214
Alibaba.com, Ltd.*		4,195,800		4,335,357
LinkedIn Corp.—Class A* (a)		194,574		12,260,108
MercadoLibre, Inc. (a)		92,345		7,345,121
Yandex N.V.—Class A* (a)		776,140		15,289,958
Youku.com, Inc. (ADR)* (a)		417,123		6,536,317
				60,180,075
IT Services—1.5%
Gartner, Inc.—Class A*		345,326		12,006,985
Life Sciences Tools & Services—2.8%
Illumina, Inc.* (a)		394,641		12,028,658
Techne Corp.		158,691		10,832,247
				22,860,905
Machinery—1.6%
Schindler Holding AG		111,440		12,957,109
Media—3.3%
McGraw-Hill Cos, Inc. (The)		310,382		13,957,879
Morningstar, Inc. (a)		207,029		12,307,874
				26,265,753
Metals & Mining—1.5%
Lynas Corp., Ltd.*		3,098,828		3,322,703
Molycorp, Inc.* (a)		349,523		8,381,562
				11,704,265

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Multiline Retail—1.6%
Dollar Tree, Inc.*		151,062	$	12,554,763
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—3.6%
Range Resources Corp.		274,908		17,027,801
Ultra Petroleum Corp.* (a)		399,900		11,849,037
				28,876,838
Personal Products—0.9%
Natura Cosmeticos S.A.		391,819		7,616,865
Pharmaceuticals—1.8%
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.*		318,563		14,873,706
Professional Services—7.7%
IHS, Inc.—Class A*		156,427		13,477,750
Intertek Group plc		419,569		13,214,095
Qualicorp S.A.*		1,451,478		13,034,315
Verisk Analytics, Inc.—Class A*		549,065		22,033,979
				61,760,139
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—2.8%
ARM Holdings plc (ADR) (a)		521,343		14,425,561
First Solar, Inc.* (a)		152,982		5,164,672
NVIDIA Corp.*		185,311		2,568,411
				22,158,644
Software—8.8%
Citrix Systems, Inc.*		105,182		6,386,651
FactSet Research Systems, Inc. (a)		138,041		12,048,218
Nexon Co. Ltd.*		403,944		5,808,105
Red Hat, Inc.*		243,449		10,052,009
Salesforce.com, Inc.*		140,369		14,241,839
Solera Holdings, Inc.		363,566		16,193,230
Zynga, Inc.* (a)		683,241		6,429,298
				71,159,350
Trading Companies & Distributors—3.6%
Fastenal Co. (a)		667,267		29,099,514
Wireless Telecommunication Services—0.9%
Millicom International Cellular S.A.		75,920		7,609,216
Total Common Stocks (Cost $761,899,517)				763,002,578

Preferred Stocks—1.3%

Security Description	Shares/Par Amount		Value
Internet Software & Services—0.5%
Peixe Urbano, Inc.* (b)		71,709	$	2,360,725
Workday, Inc.* (b)		94,808		1,257,154
				3,617,879
Transportation Infrastructure—0.8%
Better Place LLC, Series B* (b)		296,688		1,346,963
Better Place LLC, Series C* (b)		1,153,141		5,235,260
				6,582,223
Total Preferred Stocks (Cost $9,594,859)				10,200,102
Convertible Preferred Stock—0.4%
Software—0.4%
Zynga, Inc., Series C* (b) (Cost —$5,878,789)		419,042		3,549,286
Short-Term Investments—21.6%
Mutual Funds—18.0%
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (c)		145,035,859	$	145,035,859
Repurchase Agreement—3.6%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $29,041,032 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $29,660,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. at 0.625% due 12/23/13 with a value of $29,622,925.	$	29,041,000		29,041,000
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $174,076,859)				174,076,859
Total Investments—117.8% (Cost $951,450,024#)				950,828,825
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(17.8)%				(143,855,349	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	806,973,476

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $951,559,815. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $92,098,350 and $(92,829,340), respectively, resulting in net unrealized depreciation of $(730,990) for federal income tax purposes.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities loaned was $142,319,471 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $145,035,859 and non-cash collateral with a value of $1,456,676. The cash collateral is invested in a money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The non-cash collateral received consists primarily of government securities and bank letters of credit, and are held for the benefit of the Portfolio at the Portfolio’s custodian. The Portfolio cannot repledge or resell this collateral. As such, this collateral is excluded from the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

(b) Security was valued in good faith under procedures approved by the Board of Trustees.

(c) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities lending transactions.

(ADR)— An American Depositary Receipt is a certificate issued by a custodian bank representing the right to receive securities of the foreign issuer described. Trading on exchanges not located in the United States or Canada significantly influences the value of ADRs.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Common Stocks
Air Freight & Logistics	$	24,967,847	$	—	$	—	$	24,967,847
Biotechnology		5,503,483		—		—		5,503,483
Capital Markets		5,203,384		—		—		5,203,384
Chemicals		20,343,181		—		—		20,343,181
Commercial Services & Supplies		20,375,142		27,914,973		—		48,290,115
Communications Equipment		35,289,181		—		—		35,289,181
Construction Materials		8,994,452		—		—		8,994,452
Diversified Consumer Services		27,120,701		—		—		27,120,701
Diversified Financial Services		45,168,674		—		—		45,168,674
Electric Utilities		14,039,440		—		—		14,039,440
Food & Staples Retailing		—		7,533,201		—		7,533,201
Food Products		21,066,020		—		—		21,066,020
Health Care Equipment & Supplies		47,872,599		—		—		47,872,599
Health Care Technology		7,475,278		—		—		7,475,278
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure		16,362,917		—		—		16,362,917
Internet & Catalog Retail		11,516,613		14,571,365		—		26,087,978
Internet Software & Services		55,844,718		4,335,357		—		60,180,075
IT Services		12,006,985		—		—		12,006,985
Life Sciences Tools & Services		22,860,905		—		—		22,860,905
Machinery		—		12,957,109		—		12,957,109
Media		26,265,753		—		—		26,265,753
Metals & Mining		8,381,562		3,322,703		—		11,704,265
Multiline Retail		12,554,763		—		—		12,554,763
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels		28,876,838		—		—		28,876,838
Personal Products		7,616,865		—		—		7,616,865
Pharmaceuticals		14,873,706		—		—		14,873,706
Professional Services		48,546,044		13,214,095		—		61,760,139
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment		22,158,644		—		—		22,158,644
Software		71,159,350		—		—		71,159,350
Trading Companies & Distributors		29,099,514		—		—		29,099,514
Wireless Telecommunication Services		—		7,609,216		—		7,609,216
Total Common Stocks		671,544,559		91,458,019		—		763,002,578
Total Preferred Stocks*		—		—		10,200,102		10,200,102
Total Convertible Preferred Stock*		—		3,549,286		—		3,549,286

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY—(Continued)

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Short-Term Investments
Mutual Funds	$	145,035,859	$	—	$	—	$	145,035,859
Repurchase Agreement		—		29,041,000		—		29,041,000
Total Short-Term Investments		145,035,859		29,041,000		—		174,076,859
Total Investments	$	816,580,418	$	124,048,305	$	10,200,102	$	950,828,825

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

Following is a reconciliation of Level 3 assets for which significant unobservable inputs were used to determine fair value:

Investments in Securities	Balance as of December 31, 2010		Change in Unrealized Appreciation		Purchases		Transfers out of Level 3			Balance as of December 31, 2011		Change in Unrealized Appreciation for Investments Still Held at December 31, 2011
Convertible Preferred Stock
Internet & Catalog Retail	$	6,085,529	$	—	$	—	$	(6,085,529	)	$	—	$	—
Preferred Stocks
Internet Software & Services		—		—		3,617,879		—			3,617,879		—
Transportation Infrastructure		741,720		605,243		5,235,260		—			6,582,223		605,243
Total	$	6,827,249	$	605,243	$	8,853,139	$	(6,085,529	)	$	10,200,102	$	605,243

Convertible Preferred Stock in the amount of $6,085,529 was transferred out of Level 3 due to the initial public offering, which resulted in the trading of the security on a recognized exchange and the availability of quoted prices in an active market.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)(b)	$	921,787,825
Repurchase Agreement		29,041,000
Cash		471
Receivable for investments sold		311,789
Receivable for shares sold		1,698,395
Dividends receivable		599,249
Total assets		953,438,729
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		522,709
Shares redeemed		225,131
Collateral for securities loaned		145,035,859
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		440,497
Distribution and service fees - Class B		53,562
Distribution and service fees - Class E		2,072
Administration fees		3,588
Custodian and accounting fees		16,338
Deferred trustees’ fees		33,214
Other expenses		132,283
Total liabilities		146,465,253
Net Assets	$	806,973,476
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	1,211,648,706
Accumulated net realized loss		(404,016,182	)
Unrealized depreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		(624,442	)
Distributions in excess of net investment income		(34,606	)
Net Assets	$	806,973,476
Net Assets
Class A	$	539,526,670
Class B		251,417,318
Class E		16,029,488
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		50,041,862
Class B		24,051,021
Class E		1,517,330
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	10.78
Class B		10.45
Class E		10.56

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreement, was $922,409,024.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $142,319,471.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	5,441,614
Interest (b)		2,580,480
Total investment income		8,022,094
Expenses
Management fees		5,605,112
Administration fees		44,928
Custodian and accounting fees		188,955
Distribution and service fees - Class B		649,536
Distribution and service fees - Class E		29,175
Audit and tax services		32,891
Legal		36,083
Trustees’ fees and expenses		39,505
Shareholder reporting		245,493
Insurance		7,365
Miscellaneous		10,547
Total expenses		6,889,590
Less management fee waiver		(100,000	)
Net expenses		6,789,590
Net investment income		1,232,504
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments and Foreign Currency Transactions
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments		68,646,670
Foreign currency transactions		(40,173	)
Net realized gain on investments and foreign currency transactions (c)		68,606,497
Net change in unrealized depreciation on:
Investments		(130,357,611	)
Foreign currency transactions		(3,613	)
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		(130,361,224	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments and foreign currency transactions		(61,754,727	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(60,522,223	)

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $267,582.

(b) Includes net income on securities loaned of $2,573,927.

(c) Net of foreign capital gain taxes of $251,491.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	1,232,504		$	2,667,548
Net realized gain on investments and foreign currency transactions		68,606,497			120,001,146
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments and foreign currency transactions		(130,361,224	)		20,640,817
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations		(60,522,223	)		143,309,511
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(4,134,923	)		(38,454	)
Class B		(1,487,244	)		(6,879	)
Class E		(131,024	)		—
From net realized gains
Class A		(14,572,788	)		—
Class B		(6,738,606	)		—
Class E		(525,267	)		—
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(27,589,852	)		(45,333	)
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		68,891,913			553,668,011
Net Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets		(19,220,162	)		696,932,189
Net assets at beginning of period		826,193,638			129,261,449
Net assets at end of period	$	806,973,476		$	826,193,638
Undistributed (distributions in excess of) net investment income at end of period	$	(34,606	)	$	3,435,343

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		8,858,790		$	107,694,407			1,289,999		$	13,501,222
Shares issued through acquisition		—			—			48,191,480			483,842,455
Reinvestments		1,439,055			18,707,711			3,884			38,454
Redemptions		(7,902,988	)		(95,053,164	)		(4,251,615	)		(43,476,373	)
Net increase		2,394,857		$	31,348,954			45,233,748		$	453,905,758
Class B
Sales		6,813,904		$	78,886,612			4,218,294		$	42,134,575
Shares issued through acquisition		—			—			6,954,679			67,947,214
Reinvestments		651,811			8,225,850			714			6,879
Redemptions		(3,974,512	)		(46,495,055	)		(2,889,448	)		(28,039,700	)
Net increase		3,491,203		$	40,617,407			8,284,239		$	82,048,968
Class E*
Sales		202,768		$	2,469,522			226,620		$	2,465,333
Shares issued through acquisition		—			—			1,880,909			18,545,759
Reinvestments		51,474			656,291			—			—
Redemptions		(516,668	)		(6,200,261	)		(327,773	)		(3,297,807	)
Net increase (decrease)		(262,426	)	$	(3,074,448	)		1,779,756		$	17,713,285
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	68,891,913					$	553,668,011

* Commencement of operations was 04/27/2010.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	11.91		$	9.01		$	5.71		$	11.82		$	10.44
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.03			0.07			0.02			0.02			0.05
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.75	)		2.85			3.28			(5.10	)		2.29
Total from investment operations		(0.72	)		2.92			3.30			(5.08	)		2.34
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.09	)		(0.02	)		(0.00	)++		(0.15	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.32	)		0.00			0.00			(0.88	)		(0.96	)
Total distributions		(0.41	)		(0.02	)		(0.00	)++		(1.03	)		(0.96	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.78		$	11.91		$	9.01		$	5.71		$	11.82
Total Return (%)		(6.67	)		32.41			57.83			(46.67	)		23.84
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.72			0.80			0.90			0.89			0.88
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)		0.71			0.78			0.90			0.89			0.88
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.22			0.63			0.24			0.25			0.46
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		34.1			47.8			32.8			38.1			62.0
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	539.5		$	567.5		$	21.7		$	16.3		$	29.6

	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	11.57		$	8.76		$	5.57		$	11.55		$	10.25
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (loss)(a)		(0.00	)+		0.02			0.00	+		(0.00	)+		0.02
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.73	)		2.79			3.19			(4.97	)		2.24
Total from investment operations		(0.73	)		2.81			3.19			(4.97	)		2.26
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.07	)		(0.00	)++		0.00			(0.13	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.32	)		0.00			0.00			(0.88	)		(0.96	)
Total distributions		(0.39	)		(0.00	)++		0.00			(1.01	)		(0.96	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.45		$	11.57		$	8.76		$	5.57		$	11.55
Total Return (%)		(6.92	)		32.09			57.27			(46.75	)		23.48
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.97			1.05			1.15			1.14			1.14
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)		0.96			1.03			1.15			1.14			1.13
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		(0.03	)		0.24			0.00	+++		(0.03	)		0.19
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		34.1			47.8			32.8			38.1			62.0
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	251.4		$	237.9		$	107.5		$	58.0		$	81.5

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	11.69		$	9.71
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.01			0.04
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.74	)		1.94
Total from investment operations		(0.73	)		1.98
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.08	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.32	)		0.00
Total distributions		(0.40	)		0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.56		$	11.69
Total Return (%)		(6.87	)		20.39
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.87			0.95	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)		0.86			0.93	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.06			0.50	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		34.1			47.8
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	16.0		$	20.8

* Annualized.

+ Net investment income was less than $0.01.

++ Distributions from net investment income were less than $0.01.

+++ Ratio of net investment income to average net assets was less than 0.01%.

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Commencement of operations was 4/27/2010.

(c) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Companies (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A, B and E Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to foreign currency transactions, passive foreign investment companies (PFICs), deferred trustees’ compensation, capital loss carryforwards and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Securities Lending - The Portfolio may lend its portfolio securities to certain qualified brokers who borrow securities in order to complete certain securities transactions. By lending its portfolio securities, the Portfolio attempts to increase its net investment income through the receipt of income on the loaned securities. Any gain or loss in the market price of the loaned securities that might occur and any interest earned or dividends declared during the term of the loan would accrue to the account of the Portfolio.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

The Trust has entered into a securities lending arrangement with the custodian, State Street Bank and Trust Company (the “custodian”). Under this arrangement, the custodian is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral at least equal to 102% of the market value of the loaned securities (105% for foreign equity securities), at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities must be maintained for the duration of the loan. Cash collateral is generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The Navigator Portfolio is a registered money market fund which invests in a variety of high quality U.S. dollar-denominated instruments. If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower shall be required to deliver, by the close of business on the following business day, an additional amount of collateral so that the total amount of posted collateral equals at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of net income (income after the deduction of expenses and fees of the Navigator Portfolio) on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the custodian and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by U.S. Treasuries, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the custodian. The risks associated with lending portfolio securities include, but are not limited to, possible delays in receiving additional collateral or in the recovery of the loaned securities, possible loss of rights in the collateral should the borrower fail financially, as well as risk of loss in the value of the collateral or the value of the investments made with the collateral. Net interest income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2011 is disclosed in the footnotes to the Statement of Operations. Any outstanding loans by the Portfolio at December 31, 2011 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

Foreign Currency Translation - The books and records of the Portfolio are maintained in U.S. dollars. The values of securities, currencies and other assets and liabilities denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars are translated into U.S. dollars based upon foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period. Purchases and sales of investment securities, income and expenses are translated on the respective dates of such transactions. Since the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, it is not practical to isolate that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates from that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities. Such fluctuations are included in the net realized and unrealized gain or loss on investments.

Net realized foreign exchange gains or losses arise from activity in forward foreign currency exchange contracts, sales of foreign currency, currency gains or losses realized between the trade and settlement dates on securities transactions, and the difference between the amounts of dividends, interest, and foreign withholding taxes recorded by the Portfolio and the U.S. dollar equivalent of the amounts actually received or paid by the Portfolio. Gains and losses attributable to foreign currency exchange rates on sales of securities are recorded as Net realized gains and losses on investments. Net unrealized foreign exchange gains and losses arise from changes in the value of assets and liabilities, other than investment securities, resulting from changes in foreign exchange rates.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc. (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by  the Adviser for the year ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$5,605,112		0.700	%	First $200 Million
		0.650	%	$200 Million to $500 Million
		0.625	%	Over $500 Million

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Management Fee Waiver - Effective May 1, 2010, the Subadviser reduced the subadvisory fee it charges to the Adviser for managing the Portfolio. This fee change reduced the subadvisory fee charged on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets less than or equal to $200 million and those in excess of $500 million but less than $750 million. In connection with this change in the subadvisory fee, the Adviser contractually agreed, effective May 1, 2011, to waive a portion of the management fee through April 30, 2012. This waiver reduced the management fee to the annual rate of: 0.650% of the first $500 million of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets and 0.625% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets in excess of $500 million. This arrangement was voluntary for the period from January 1, 2011 through April 30, 2011. Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as a management fee waiver in the Statement of Operations.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Expense Limitation Agreement - The Adviser had entered into an expense limitation agreement with the Trust (“Expense Limitation Agreement”) in the interest of limiting expenses of the Portfolio. The Expense Limitation Agreement continued in effect with respect to the Portfolio until April 30, 2011. Pursuant to that Expense Limitation Agreement, the Adviser had agreed to waive or limit its fees and to assume other expenses so that the total annual operating expenses of the Portfolio other than interest, taxes, brokerage commissions, other expenditures which were capitalized or expensed in accordance with GAAP, other extraordinary expenses not incurred in the ordinary course of the Portfolio’s business and acquired fund fees and expenses but including amounts payable pursuant to a plan adopted in accordance with Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act, were limited to the following expense ratios as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets:

Maximum Expense Ratio under current Expense Limitation Agreement
Class A	Class B			Class E
0.90%		1.15	%		1.05	%

If in any year in which the Management Agreement is still in effect, the estimated aggregate operating expenses of the Portfolio for the fiscal year are less than the Maximum Expense Ratios for that year, subject to approval by the Trust’s Board, the Adviser shall be entitled to reimbursement by the Portfolio to the extent that the charge does not cause the expenses in such subsequent year to exceed the Maximum Expense Ratios as stated above. The Portfolio is not obligated to repay any expense paid by the Adviser more than five years after the end of the fiscal year in which such expense was incurred.

Effective May 1, 2011, there was no longer an expense cap for the Portfolio.

Distribution Agreements and Plans - The Trust has distribution agreements with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A, Class B and Class E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B and Class E distribution plans provide that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% and 0.25%, respectively, of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B and Class E Shares. However, under the Class B and Class E distribution agreement, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B and Class E distribution plans are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% and 0.15% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Under the terms of the Class B and Class E distribution plans and distribution agreement, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B and Class E Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. as designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolios, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases		Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government	U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government
$—	$322,964,368	$—	$288,597,138

The Portfolio engaged in security transactions with other accounts managed by Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc. that amounted to $5,538,564 in Purchases and $2,404,574 in Sales of investments which are included above.

5. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

7. Acquisition

At the close of business on April 30, 2010, the Portfolio, with aggregate Class A, Class B and Class E net assets of $23,327,535, $124,098,506 and $1,015, respectively, acquired all of the assets and liabilities of FI Mid Cap Opportunities Portfolio of the Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. (“FI Mid Cap”). The acquisition was accomplished by a tax-free exchange of 48,191,480 Class A shares of the Portfolio (valued at $483,842,455) for 35,884,974 Class A shares of FI Mid Cap, 6,954,679 Class B shares of the Portfolio (valued at $67,947,214) for 5,156,153 of Class B shares of FI Mid Cap and 1,880,909 Class E shares of the Portfolio (valued at $18,545,759) for 1,391,511 Class E shares of FI Mid Cap. FI Mid Cap then distributed the Class A, B and E shares of the Portfolio that it received from the Portfolio to its shareholders by class. The transaction was part of a restructuring designed to eliminate the offering of overlapping Portfolios in the MetLife, Inc. families of funds with similar investment objectives and similar investment strategies that serve as funding vehicles for insurance contracts that are offered by affiliates of MetLife. The reorganization was proposed because FI Mid Cap had experienced a significant decline in assets, which, if it continued, would affect the Portfolio’s ability to maintain certain operational efficiencies. FI Mid Cap’s net assets on April 30, 2010, were $483,842,455, $67,947,214 and $18,545,759 for Class A, Class B and Class E, respectively, including investments valued at $540,212,782 with a cost basis of $435,057,033. For financial reporting purposes, assets received and shares issued by the Portfolio were recorded at fair value; however, the cost basis of the investments received by the Portfolio from FI Mid Cap were carried forward to align ongoing reporting of the Portfolio’s realized and unrealized gains and losses with amounts distributable to shareholders for tax purposes. The Portfolio acquired $537,593,548 in capital loss carry forwards from FI Mid Cap.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

7. Acquisition - continued

The net assets of the Portfolio immediately after the acquisition were $717,762,484, which included $105,155,748 of acquired unrealized appreciation and $1,400,330 of acquired distributions in excess of net investment income.

Assuming the acquisition had been completed on January 1, 2010, the Portfolio’s pro-forma results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2010 are as follows:

(Unaudited)
Net Investment income	$	1,599,740	(a)
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on Investments and foreign currency transactions		279,922,568	(b)
Net increase in assets from operations	$	281,522,308

Because the combined investment portfolios have been managed as a single integrated portfolio since the acquisition was completed, it is not practicable to separate the amounts of revenue and earnings of FI Mid Cap that have been included in the Portfolio’s Statement of Operations since April 30, 2010.

(a) $2,667,548 as reported plus $(1,400,330) FI Mid Cap pre-merger, plus $282,870 in lower Advisory fees, plus $49,652 of pro-forma eliminated other expenses.

(b) $140,641,963 as reported plus $139,280,605 FI Mid Cap pre-merger.

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$6,329,786	$	45,333	$	21,259,646	$	—	$	27,589,432	$	45,333

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Depreciation			Loss Carryforwards			Total
$—	$	—	$	(735,626	)	$	(403,906,391	)	$	(404,642,017	)

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses.

As of December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and the pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards and expiration dates were as follows:

Expiring 12/31/2015	Expiring 12/31/2016			Total
$195,826,323*	$	208,080,068	*	$	403,906,391

* The Portfolio acquired capital losses in the merger with FI Mid Cap Opportunities Portfolio on April 30, 2010.

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements - continued

prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 23, 2012

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

25

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the one-, three- and five-year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board also considered that the Portfolio outperformed its benchmark, the Russell Midcap Growth Index, for the same periods ended September 30, 2011. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s performance was satisfactory.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as

26

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the Expense Group median, the Expense Universe median and the Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were below the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that in conjunction with a previous merger the Adviser had negotiated a reduction to the Portfolio’s sub-advisory fee schedule by lowering the levels at which certain breakpoints took effect. The Board also took into consideration that the Adviser is waiving an additional portion of its advisory fee on assets below $200 million in order for shareholders to benefit from the fee reduction being implemented at the sub-advisory fee level. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

27

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee and sub-advisory fee each contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s management fees are below the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

28

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Managed by OppenheimerFunds, Inc.

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A, B, and E shares of the Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio returned -0.97%, -1.38%, and -1.11%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Russell 1000 Growth Index¹, returned 2.64%.

Market Environment/Conditions

For the reporting period, United States (“U.S.”) equities generally finished where they started the year. European equities largely finished the period in negative territory and developing markets generally fared the worst over the period, with some markets experiencing double-digit declines.

The reporting period began with a sense of market optimism over improving Gross Domestic Product (“GDP”) growth in Europe and the U.S., and equity markets in those regions overall experienced solid gains through the first four months of 2011. After strong gains in 2010, most developing market equities started the year off lagging their developed counterparts due to concerns over slowing growth and rising inflation.

Market volatility across global equity markets grew over the second quarter of 2011 when Greece again teetered on the brink of defaulting on its sovereign debt, rekindling worries that fiscal instability might spread to other parts of Europe. Concerns over the economic problems in other European countries intensified as did a sense of unease over the health of the European banking system. A natural disaster in Japan caused disruptions in supply chains in the information technology sector and the automotive industry. Previously high-flying economies such as Brazil, Australia and India saw their GDP numbers cool off significantly as they struggled to keep their economies from heading into recession. In the U.S., the Federal Reserve’s (“Fed”) latest round of quantitative easing, labeled “QE2”, officially ended on June 30, adding to questions around what the Fed’s next move might be to help stimulate the U.S. economy. These developments, in addition to persistently high levels of U.S. unemployment and a depressed U.S. housing market, contributed to a weaker-than-expected estimate of U.S. GDP during the second quarter of the year.

Due to the sluggish economy and lowered expectations for future economic growth, global equities began a decline over the summer that intensified as the third quarter progressed. The markets priced in a renewed sense of pessimism that Europe might succumb to a double-dip recession and that the U.S. was headed for a prolonged period of disappointing growth. Uncertainty and market nervousness grew as a deal to raise the U.S. debt ceiling was not reached until shortly before the deadline. As a result of the intense political wrangling, the credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s took the unprecedented and controversial step of downgrading the debt of the U.S., a decision that the two other major U.S. credit rating agencies opted not to follow. These events, coupled with the high likelihood of a Greek default on its debt and worries that Italy might be next, sent stocks sharply lower over the third quarter of 2011.

In the fourth quarter, equity markets finished the period largely on a positive note, rebounding strongly in October in particular, as European leaders sought to undertake measures to address the debt issues in the region and the U.S. economy began to show some signs of life as high unemployment trended downward, the housing market picked up slightly and consumer sentiment improved. Developing markets generally saw equity gains in the fourth quarter, but their performance continued to lag behind that of the developed markets. A decisive shift toward easier monetary policy in China and an interest rate cut by Brazil in late November for the third time since August, stimulated large gains in Eurozone bond markets as yields fell in almost every country in the Eurozone and also sparked a temporary rally in the global equity markets.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

Information Technology company Juniper Networks, Inc. was a top performance detractor for the Portfolio. During the period, Juniper Networks, Inc. announced an internal reorganization and sizable layoffs amidst a weakening global economy and softening demand for many information technology products and services. In Telecommunication Services, NII Holdings, Inc. detracted from performance. NII Holdings, Inc. reported a third-quarter loss, sending its shares lower. We exited our position by period end. Semiconductor firm Broadcom Corp. also had a difficult reporting period, as the semiconductor industry generally did not fare well given the uncertain economic environment and lack of new investment in technology projects.

We established positions in Illumina, Inc. in Health Care and Baker Hughes, Inc. in Energy during the period, which detracted from Portfolio results given the significant market volatility over the second half of the reporting period. Biotech firm Illumina, Inc. fell sharply after it warned it would miss third quarter revenue forecasts and withdraw its full-year estimate. While biotech stocks overall performed poorly for the period, Illumina’s stock fell further than most after it expressed a negative outlook for research funding in the U.S. and Europe and a drop in demand for the company’s Genome Analyzer equipment. We exited our position by period end. Baker Hughes, Inc. is the world’s third largest oilfield services company delivering focused efforts on shale gas and other oilfield services. Baker Hughes, Inc. was negatively impacted by the market volatility in the third quarter of 2011 as crude oil prices declined amid concerns that an economic slowdown could dampen demand. As the global economic outlook worsened, oil prices fell sharply during the period, leading to lower revenues for oil producers and suppliers.

The top contributor to overall performance was Apple, Inc. as the company continued to demonstrate results that impressed the market. For instance, during the third quarter of 2011, Apple, Inc. reported that its iPhone and iPad sales increased substantially during its fiscal third quarter, leading to much higher revenue and profits for the company. QUALCOMM, Inc. was also a top contributor to Portfolio performance within the Information Technology sector. QUALCOMM, Inc. during the period raised its 2011 forecast amid strong sales. The

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Managed by OppenheimerFunds, Inc.

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

company completed its acquisition of Atheros Communications, Inc., which is a developer of semiconductors for wireless and other network communications products, and also signed a subscriber unit license agreement with Chinese mobile phone maker Zoom Technologies, Inc.

Another top contributor to Portfolio performance was aerospace and defense company Goodrich Corp. in the Industrials sector. During the period, United Technologies Corp. announced that it planned to purchase Goodrich Corp., based out of Charlotte, N.C. with approximately 27,000 employees worldwide, for $127.50 per share. The market reacted positively to this news, sending Goodrich’s stock price higher. Within Consumer Discretionary, fast food chain McDonald’s Corp. posted solid results, as it benefited from the popularity of its McCafe beverage line-up, breakfasts and its premium chicken sandwiches. Its profits and revenues impressed the market during the period.

In Health Care, pharmaceuticals firm Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. performed well for the Portfolio. The company, which produces such drugs as Plavix and Abilify, benefited from recent trial results for Eliquis, an anticoagulant that showed “best in class” data for both stroke and major bleeding against the existing drug Warfarin, while also showing a statistically significant reduction in mortality. Additionally, a competing drug from Johnson & Johnson/Bayer, which is currently in trials, experienced a setback from the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). Allergan, Inc. was another pharmaceuticals stock held by the Portfolio that contributed positively to performance. The multi-specialty health care company continued to post solid results and profit from sales of its Botox product.

At period end, the Portfolio relative to the Index had significant overweight positions in the Health Care and Industrials sectors. The Portfolio had large relative underweight positions in Financials, Information Technology, Consumer Staples, and Telecommunication Services. The Portfolio held no securities in the Utilities sector at period end.

Julie Van Cleave, CFA, Vice President, Portfolio Manager

OppenheimerFunds, Inc.

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Apple, Inc.		6.6
QUALCOMM, Inc.		4.8
Google, Inc. - Class A		3.2
McDonald’s Corp.		2.5
Allergan, Inc.		2.1
Oracle Corp.		2.1
Union Pacific Corp.		2.0
Costco Wholesale Corp.		2.0
Chevron Corp.		1.9
Occidental Petroleum Corp.		1.9

Top Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Non-Cyclical		21.3
Industrials		16.3
Cyclical		14.6
Technology		14.3
Communications		13.9
Energy		11.5
Basic Materials		5.3
Financials		1.7
Cash & Cash Equivalents		1.1

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio managed by

OppenheimerFunds, Inc. vs. Russell 1000 Growth Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 year		5 Year		10 Year		Since Inception3
Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio—Class A		-0.97%		-0.60%		—		1.32%
Class B		-1.38%		-0.86%		1.06%		—
Class E		-1.11%		-0.73%		—		2.01%
Russell 1000 Growth Index1		2.64%		2.50%		2.60%		—

The performance of Class B shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹ The Russell 1000 Growth Index is an unmanaged measure of performance of the largest capitalized U.S. companies, within the Russell 1000 companies, that have higher price-to-book ratios and forecasted growth values.

²“Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

³Inception of Class A shares is 1/2/2002. Inception of the Class B shares is 2/12/2001. Inception of the Class E shares is 5/2/2005. Index returns are based on an inception date of 2/12/2001.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A
Actual		0.66%	$	1,000.00	$	939.80	$	3.23
Hypothetical*		0.66%		1,000.00		1,021.87		3.36
Class B
Actual		0.91%	$	1,000.00	$	936.00	$	4.44
Hypothetical*		0.91%		1,000.00		1,020.61		4.63
Class E
Actual		0.81%	$	1,000.00	$	938.10	$	3.96
Hypothetical*		0.81%		1,000.00		1,021.12		4.13

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—98.6% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—3.4%
Goodrich Corp.		49,570	$	6,131,809
Precision Castparts Corp.		47,190		7,776,440
United Technologies Corp.		109,890		8,031,860
				21,940,109
Air Freight & Logistics—1.3%
United Parcel Service, Inc.—Class B		119,840		8,771,090
Auto Components—1.1%
Johnson Controls, Inc.		220,310		6,886,891
Beverages—4.0%
Brown-Forman Corp.—Class B		67,980		5,473,070
Coca-Cola Co. (The)		174,460		12,206,966
SABMiller plc		246,900		8,658,830
				26,338,866
Biotechnology—2.1%
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.*		43,640		3,120,260
Celgene Corp.*		83,720		5,659,472
Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.*		147,970		4,914,084
				13,693,816
Capital Markets—0.2%
Charles Schwab Corp. (The)		111,850		1,259,431
Chemicals—3.7%
Albemarle Corp.		51,330		2,644,008
Ecolab, Inc.		127,040		7,344,183
Mosaic Co. (The)		50,970		2,570,417
Praxair, Inc.		111,230		11,890,487
				24,449,095
Commercial Banks—0.6%
Standard Chartered plc		165,991		3,615,321
Communications Equipment—5.3%
Juniper Networks, Inc.*		188,990		3,857,286
QUALCOMM, Inc.		568,120		31,076,164
				34,933,450
Computers & Peripherals—6.6%
Apple, Inc.*		106,510		43,136,550
Consumer Finance—1.0%
American Express Co.		137,290		6,475,969
Electrical Equipment—1.2%
Emerson Electric Co. (a)		173,890		8,101,535
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—1.0%
Corning, Inc. (a)		516,980	$	6,710,400
Energy Equipment & Services—5.4%
Baker Hughes, Inc.		126,770		6,166,093
Cameron International Corp.*		133,490		6,566,373
Ensco plc (ADR)		95,530		4,482,267
National Oilwell Varco, Inc.		111,720		7,595,843
Schlumberger, Ltd.		153,910		10,513,592
				35,324,168
Food & Staples Retailing—2.0%
Costco Wholesale Corp.		155,880		12,987,922
Food Products—3.1%
Mead Johnson Nutrition Co.		37,170		2,554,694
Nestle S.A.		174,543		10,039,174
Unilever N.V.		217,703		7,492,996
				20,086,864
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—1.3%
Baxter International, Inc.		171,460		8,483,841
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—3.5%
McDonald’s Corp.		163,880		16,442,080
Yum! Brands, Inc.		104,260		6,152,383
				22,594,463
Household Products—1.5%
Colgate-Palmolive Co. (a)		108,700		10,042,793
Industrial Conglomerates—1.5%
Danaher Corp. (a)		207,430		9,757,507
Internet & Catalog Retail—1.4%
Amazon.com, Inc.*		51,475		8,910,323
Internet Software & Services—4.6%
eBay, Inc.*		295,550		8,964,032
Google, Inc.—Class A*		32,670		21,101,553
				30,065,585
IT Services—2.7%
International Business Machines Corp.		56,770		10,438,868
Visa, Inc.—Class A		71,070		7,215,737
				17,654,605
Life Sciences Tools & Services—1.7%
Mettler-Toledo International, Inc.* (a)		31,500		4,652,865

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Life Sciences Tools & Services—(Continued)
Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.*		138,520	$	6,229,244
				10,882,109
Machinery—5.1%
Caterpillar, Inc.		94,010		8,517,306
Cummins, Inc.		28,000		2,464,560
Deere & Co. (a)		57,500		4,447,625
Joy Global, Inc.		113,210		8,487,354
Parker Hannifin Corp.		126,160		9,619,700
				33,536,545
Media—1.6%
Walt Disney Co. (The)		270,200		10,132,500
Metals & Mining—1.5%
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc.		176,530		6,494,539
Rio Tinto plc		74,804		3,621,383
				10,115,922
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—6.1%
Apache Corp.		67,620		6,125,020
Chevron Corp.		116,060		12,348,784
ConocoPhillips		121,120		8,826,014
Occidental Petroleum Corp.		130,980		12,272,826
				39,572,644
Personal Products—0.6%
Estee Lauder Cos., Inc. (The)—Class A		35,360		3,971,635
Pharmaceuticals—6.9%
Allergan, Inc. (a)		158,580		13,913,809
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.		320,930		11,309,573
Novo Nordisk A.S.—Class B		97,882		11,285,956
Roche Holding AG		52,021		8,813,617
				45,322,955
Road & Rail—2.0%
Union Pacific Corp.		124,460		13,185,292
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—1.1%
Broadcom Corp.—Class A*		250,360		7,350,570
Software—4.9%
Intuit, Inc.		187,160		9,842,744
Oracle Corp.		529,840		13,590,396
VMware, Inc.—Class A*		104,540		8,696,683
				32,129,823
Specialty Retail—4.3%
Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.*		49,670	$	2,879,370
O’Reilly Automotive, Inc.*		129,020		10,315,149
Tiffany & Co.		99,420		6,587,569
TJX Cos, Inc. (The)		124,700		8,049,385
				27,831,473
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—3.8%
Coach, Inc.		137,490		8,392,390
NIKE, Inc.—Class B		102,690		9,896,235
Ralph Lauren Corp.		47,280		6,528,422
				24,817,047
Tobacco—0.5%
Philip Morris International, Inc.		41,840		3,283,603
Total Common Stocks (Cost $545,354,540)				644,352,712
Short-Term Investments—1.7%
Mutual Funds—0.6%
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (b)		3,905,846		3,905,846
Repurchase Agreement—1.1%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement, dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $7,053,008 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $7,205,000 Freddie Mac at 0.625% due 12/23/13 with a value of $7,195,994.	$	7,053,000		7,053,000
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $10,958,846)				10,958,846
Total Investments—100.3% (Cost $556,313,386#)				655,311,558
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(0.3)%				(2,233,902	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	653,077,656

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $558,085,262. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $124,720,776 and $(27,494,480), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $97,226,296 for federal income tax purposes.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities loaned was $3,811,704 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $3,905,846. The cash collateral is invested in a money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian.

(b) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities lending transactions.

(ADR)— An American Depositary Receipt is a certificate issued by a custodian bank representing the right to receive securities of the foreign issuer described. Trading on exchanges not located in the United States or Canada significantly influences the value of ADRs.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Common Stocks
Aerospace & Defense	$	21,940,109	$	—	$	—	$	21,940,109
Air Freight & Logistics		8,771,090		—		—		8,771,090
Auto Components		6,886,891		—		—		6,886,891
Beverages		17,680,036		8,658,830		—		26,338,866
Biotechnology		13,693,816		—		—		13,693,816
Capital Markets		1,259,431		—		—		1,259,431
Chemicals		24,449,095		—		—		24,449,095
Commercial Banks		—		3,615,321		—		3,615,321
Communications Equipment		34,933,450		—		—		34,933,450
Computers & Peripherals		43,136,550		—		—		43,136,550
Consumer Finance		6,475,969		—		—		6,475,969
Electrical Equipment		8,101,535		—		—		8,101,535
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components		6,710,400		—		—		6,710,400
Energy Equipment & Services		35,324,168		—		—		35,324,168
Food & Staples Retailing		12,987,922		—		—		12,987,922
Food Products		2,554,694		17,532,170		—		20,086,864
Health Care Equipment & Supplies		8,483,841		—		—		8,483,841
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure		22,594,463		—		—		22,594,463
Household Products		10,042,793		—		—		10,042,793
Industrial Conglomerates		9,757,507		—		—		9,757,507
Internet & Catalog Retail		8,910,323		—		—		8,910,323
Internet Software & Services		30,065,585		—		—		30,065,585
IT Services		17,654,605		—		—		17,654,605
Life Sciences Tools & Services		10,882,109		—		—		10,882,109
Machinery		33,536,545		—		—		33,536,545
Media		10,132,500		—		—		10,132,500
Metals & Mining		6,494,539		3,621,383		—		10,115,922
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels		39,572,644		—		—		39,572,644
Personal Products		3,971,635		—		—		3,971,635
Pharmaceuticals		25,223,382		20,099,573		—		45,322,955
Road & Rail		13,185,292		—		—		13,185,292
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment		7,350,570		—		—		7,350,570

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY—(Continued)

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Software	$	32,129,823	$	—	$	—	$	32,129,823
Specialty Retail		27,831,473		—		—		27,831,473
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods		24,817,047		—		—		24,817,047
Tobacco		3,283,603		—		—		3,283,603
Total Common Stocks		590,825,435		53,527,277		—		644,352,712
Short-Term Investments
Mutual Funds		3,905,846		—		—		3,905,846
Repurchase Agreement		—		7,053,000		—		7,053,000
Total Short-Term Investments		3,905,846		7,053,000		—		10,958,846
Total Investments	$	594,731,281	$	60,580,277	$	—	$	655,311,558

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)(b)	$	648,258,558
Repurchase Agreement		7,053,000
Cash		849
Cash denominated in foreign currencies (c)		1,327,489
Receivable for shares sold		158,473
Dividends receivable		1,015,691
Total assets		657,814,060
Liabilities
Payables for:
Shares redeemed		274,741
Collateral for securities loaned		3,905,846
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		337,416
Distribution and service fees - Class B		65,787
Distribution and service fees - Class E		559
Administration fees		2,919
Custodian and accounting fees		10,333
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		113,736
Total liabilities		4,736,404
Net Assets	$	653,077,656
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	768,529,807
Accumulated net realized loss		(218,602,157	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		98,946,201
Undistributed net investment income		4,203,805
Net Assets	$	653,077,656
Net Assets
Class A	$	340,802,843
Class B		307,944,462
Class E		4,330,351
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		55,993,872
Class B		51,287,037
Class E		714,585
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	6.09
Class B		6.00
Class E		6.06

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreement, was $549,260,386.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $3,811,704.

(c) Identified cost of cash denominated in foreign currencies was $1,401,113.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	9,776,567
Interest (b)		45,659
Total investment income		9,822,226
Expenses
Management fees		4,251,816
Administration fees		37,658
Custodian and accounting fees		118,609
Distribution and service fees - Class B		839,264
Distribution and service fees - Class E		7,338
Audit and tax services		33,102
Legal		33,290
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,423
Shareholder reporting		123,270
Insurance		1,055
Miscellaneous		12,121
Total expenses		5,492,946
Net investment income		4,329,280
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments and Foreign Currency Transactions
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments		24,623,556
Foreign currency transactions		(12,480	)
Net realized gain on investments and foreign currency transactions		24,611,076
Net change in unrealized depreciation on:
Investments		(35,337,086	)
Foreign currency transactions		(129,854	)
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		(35,466,940	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments and foreign currency transactions		(10,855,864	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(6,526,584	)

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $187,064.

(b) Includes net income on securities loaned of $45,370.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	4,329,280		$	2,334,809
Net realized gain (loss) on investments and foreign currency transactions		24,611,076			(5,840,690	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments and foreign currency transactions		(35,466,940	)		66,053,441
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations		(6,526,584	)		62,547,560
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(1,277,339	)		(2,574,087	)
Class B		(354,195	)		(1,488,387	)
Class E		(10,076	)		(26,076	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(1,641,610	)		(4,088,550	)
Net decrease in net assets from capital share transactions		(81,832,992	)		(83,988,610	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets		(90,001,186	)		(25,529,600	)
Net assets at beginning of period		743,078,842			768,608,442
Net assets at end of period	$	653,077,656		$	743,078,842
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	4,203,805		$	1,727,764

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		1,459,860		$	9,071,637			1,399,004		$	7,857,255
Reinvestments		197,425			1,277,339			433,348			2,574,087
Redemptions		(7,967,544	)		(49,507,645	)		(12,291,992	)		(67,403,129	)
Net decrease		(6,310,259	)	$	(39,158,669	)		(10,459,640	)	$	(56,971,787	)
Class B
Sales		2,851,606		$	17,422,566			4,722,162		$	25,829,448
Reinvestments		55,429			354,195			253,558			1,488,387
Redemptions		(9,753,207	)		(59,912,213	)		(9,758,004	)		(53,794,226	)
Net decrease		(6,846,172	)	$	(42,135,452	)		(4,782,284	)	$	(26,476,391	)
Class E
Sales		227,561		$	1,423,082			250,275		$	1,397,259
Reinvestments		1,562			10,076			4,405			26,076
Redemptions		(321,577	)		(1,972,029	)		(360,908	)		(1,963,767	)
Net decrease		(92,454	)	$	(538,871	)		(106,228	)	$	(540,432	)
Decrease derived from capital shares transactions				$	(81,832,992	)				$	(83,988,610	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009		2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	6.17		$	5.66		$	3.93	$	9.94		$	9.27
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.05			0.02			0.02		0.02			0.03
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.11	)		0.53			1.71		(3.49	)		1.26
Total from investment operations		(0.06	)		0.55			1.73		(3.47	)		1.29
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.02	)		(0.04	)		0.00		(0.31	)		(0.01	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00		(2.23	)		(0.61	)
Total distributions		(0.02	)		(0.04	)		0.00		(2.54	)		(0.62	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	6.09		$	6.17		$	5.66	$	3.93		$	9.94
Total Return (%)		(0.97	)		9.68			44.02		(45.80	)		14.45
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.66			0.66			0.67		0.62			0.62
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.73			0.44			0.42		0.38			0.33
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		27.3			57.8			45.4		84.4			70.8
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	340.8		$	384.3		$	411.9	$	312.0		$	124.7
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009		2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	6.09		$	5.59		$	3.89	$	9.86		$	9.20
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.03			0.01			0.01		0.01			0.00	+
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.11	)		0.51			1.69		(3.47	)		1.27
Total from investment operations		(0.08	)		0.52			1.70		(3.46	)		1.27
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.01	)		(0.02	)		0.00		(0.28	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00		(2.23	)		(0.61	)
Total distributions		(0.01	)		(0.02	)		0.00		(2.51	)		(0.61	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	6.00		$	6.09		$	5.59	$	3.89		$	9.86
Total Return (%)		(1.38	)		9.40			43.70		(45.94	)		14.29
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.91			0.91			0.92		0.88			0.89
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.48			0.19			0.17		0.12			0.03
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		27.3			57.8			45.4		84.4			70.8
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	307.9		$	353.8		$	351.6	$	260.1		$	553.3

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009		2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	6.14		$	5.64		$	3.92	$	9.93		$	9.25
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.04			0.02			0.01		0.01			0.01
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.11	)		0.51			1.71		(3.49	)		1.28
Total from investment operations		(0.07	)		0.53			1.72		(3.48	)		1.29
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.01	)		(0.03	)		0.00		(0.30	)		(0.00	)++
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00		(2.23	)		(0.61	)
Total distributions		(0.01	)		(0.03	)		0.00		(2.53	)		(0.61	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	6.06		$	6.14		$	5.64	$	3.92		$	9.93
Total Return (%)		(1.11	)		9.41			43.88		(45.91	)		14.48
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.81			0.81			0.82		0.78			0.80
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.58			0.29			0.26		0.22			0.13
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		27.3			57.8			45.4		84.4			70.8
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	4.3		$	5.0		$	5.1	$	3.1		$	6.2

+ Net investment income was less than $0.01.

++ Audited by another Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A, B and E Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to foreign currency transactions, passive foreign investment companies (PFICs), deferred trustees’ compensation, capital loss carryforwards and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Securities Lending - The Portfolio may lend its portfolio securities to certain qualified brokers who borrow securities in order to complete certain securities transactions. By lending its portfolio securities, the Portfolio attempts to increase its net investment income through the receipt of income on the loaned securities. Any gain or loss in the market price of the loaned securities that might occur and any interest earned or dividends declared during the term of the loan would accrue to the account of the Portfolio.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

The Trust has entered into a securities lending arrangement with the custodian, State Street Bank and Trust Company (the “custodian”). Under this arrangement, the custodian is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral at least equal to 102% of the market value of the loaned securities (105% for foreign equity securities), at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities must be maintained for the duration of the loan. Cash collateral is generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The Navigator Portfolio is a registered money market fund which invests in a variety of high quality U.S. dollar-denominated instruments. If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower shall be required to deliver, by the close of business on the following business day, an additional amount of collateral so that the total amount of posted collateral equals at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of net income (income after the deduction of expenses and fees of the Navigator Portfolio) on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the custodian and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by U.S. Treasuries, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the custodian. The risks associated with lending portfolio securities include, but are not limited to, possible delays in receiving additional collateral or in the recovery of the loaned securities, possible loss of rights in the collateral should the borrower fail financially, as well as risk of loss in the value of the collateral or the value of the investments made with the collateral. Net interest income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2011 is disclosed in the footnotes to the Statement of Operations. Any outstanding loans by the Portfolio at December 31, 2011 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

Foreign Currency Translation - The books and records of the Portfolio are maintained in U.S. dollars. The values of securities, currencies and other assets and liabilities denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars are translated into U.S. dollars based upon foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period. Purchases and sales of investment securities, income and expenses are translated on the respective dates of such transactions. Since the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, it is not practical to isolate that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates from that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities. Such fluctuations are included in the net realized and unrealized gain or loss on investments.

Net realized foreign exchange gains or losses arise from activity in forward foreign currency exchange contracts, sales of foreign currency, currency gains or losses realized between the trade and settlement dates on securities transactions, and the difference between the amounts of dividends, interest, and foreign withholding taxes recorded by the Portfolio and the U.S. dollar equivalent of the amounts actually received or paid by the Portfolio. Gains and losses attributable to foreign currency exchange rates on sales of securities are recorded as Net realized gains and losses on investments. Net unrealized foreign exchange gains and losses arise from changes in the value of assets and liabilities, other than investment securities, resulting from changes in foreign exchange rates.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with OppenheimerFunds, Inc. (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$4,251,816		0.65	%	First $150 Million
		0.625	%	$150 Million to $300 Million
		0.60	%	$300 Million to $500 Million
		0.55	%	$500 Million to $700 Million
		0.525	%	$700 Million to $900 Million
		0.50	%	Over $900 Million

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Distribution Agreements and Plans - The Trust has distribution agreements with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A, Class B and Class E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B and Class E distribution plans provide that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% and 0.25%, respectively, of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B and Class E Shares. However, under the Class B and Class E distribution agreements, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B and Class E distribution plans are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% and 0.15% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares, respectively. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B and Class E distribution plans and distribution agreements, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B and Class E Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. as designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$—	$	193,630,019	$	—	$	277,929,271

The Portfolio engaged in security transactions with other accounts managed by OppenheimerFunds, Inc. that amounted to $1,403,031 in purchases of investments which is included above.

5. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

7. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$1,641,610	$	4,088,550	$	—	$	—	$	1,641,610	$	4,088,550

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards			Total
$4,228,870	$	—	$	97,174,330	$	(216,830,284	)	$	(115,427,084	)

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses.

As of December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and the pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards and expiration dates were as follows:

Expiring 12/31/2016	Expiring 12/31/2017		Expiring 12/31/2018		Total
$117,211,421	$	83,080,890	$	16,537,973	$	216,830,284

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements - continued

inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

9. Subsequent Events

At a meeting held on November 8-9, 2011, the Board of Trustees of the Trust, subject to shareholder approval, approved an Agreement and Plan of Reorganization (the “Plan”) providing for the acquisition of all the assets of the Portfolio by the Jennison Growth Portfolio (“Jennison Growth”), a portfolio of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in exchange for shares of Jennison Growth and the assumption by Jennison Growth of the liabilities of the Portfolio and voted to submit the Plan to shareholders of the Portfolio for their approval. On or about February 24, 2012, the shareholders of the Portfolio will consider the approval of the Plan. If approved by shareholders of the Portfolio, the reorganization will close on or about April 30, 2012.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 23, 2012

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the one-, three- and five-year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Russell 1000 Growth Index, for the same periods ended September 30, 2011. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance, including any plans to address the performance of the Portfolio. The Board also noted the previous replacement of a portfolio manager with respect to the Portfolio. The Board concluded that the Portfolio’s underperformance was being reasonably addressed and/or monitored.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to

25

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the Expense Group median, the Expense Universe median and the Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were above the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

26

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee and sub-advisory fee each contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s management fees are above the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at asset levels up to $500 million, after which the Portfolio’s management fees are below the asset-weighted average of comparable funds. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

27

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Managed by Pacific Investment Management Company LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A, B, and E shares of the PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio returned 11.48%, 11.14%, and 11.18%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Barclays Capital U.S. TIPS Index¹, returned 13.56%.

Market Environment/Conditions

In 2011, the global financial markets consistently made headlines for their persistent volatility resulting from a variety of unpredictable forces on both Main Street and Wall Street. Toward the beginning of the year, global markets struggled to absorb implications of intensified political unrest across the Middle East and North Africa, rising commodity prices, and the terrible earthquake and nuclear accidents in Japan.

Treasury yields declined as the U.S. debt ceiling debate, S&P’s downgrade of the U.S. long-term credit rating, and concern about the sovereign debt crisis in Europe sparked a flight to safety and boosted demand for Treasuries. European countries, including Ireland, Italy, and Spain continued to struggle with sovereign debt levels, increasing pressure on European leaders to develop a comprehensive policy response. In an effort to reinvigorate the faltering economy, the Federal Reserve (the Fed) launched “Operation Twist,” signaling its intent to buy $400 billion of long-dated Treasuries by the end of June 2012. To finance this program, the Fed agreed to sell Treasury securities with remaining maturities of 3 years or less to make financial conditions more accommodative by putting downward pressure on longer-term interest rates.

Toward the end of the year, global financial markets digested improving U.S. economic data and uncertainty surrounding the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis. A rebound in U.S. consumption improved investor risk appetites and helped most fixed income sectors outperform Treasuries. Despite improving consumer confidence in the U.S., the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis continued to fuel volatility in the global financial markets. In response to these pressures, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) announced a liquidity program designed to provide more favorable financing conditions for countries struggling with escalating borrowing costs. Despite the IMF’s efforts and the growth of the European Financial Stability Fund (EFSF), many Eurozone countries still faced increasing unemployment and worsening debt-to-Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ratios into the year end.

U.S. Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) prices rose during the year as global financial markets fled to the safety of the U.S. TIPS real yields rallied on the back of investor flight to quality and slower global growth amid heightened sovereign risk concerns in Europe. TIPS underperformed their nominal Treasury counterparts due to falling inflation expectations as breakeven inflation (BEI) levels, also a measure of market inflation expectations, narrowed.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

The Portfolio underperformed its benchmark for the year. An underweight to the long end of the U.S. yield curve, implemented via interest rate swaps, detracted from returns as long-term yields fell more than short-term yields. Holdings of investment grade corporate securities detracted from performance as this sector underperformed like-duration Treasuries on debt contagion fears. Favoring nominal duration over real duration positioning in the U.S. was positive for Portfolio performance as nominal Treasuries outperformed TIPS. Additionally, exposure to nominal bonds in the U.K and Australian inflation-linked bonds (ILBs) added to performance during the period as yields declined on slower growth prospects. Exposure to emerging market (EM) local instruments, particularly in Brazil, was also positive for performance as rates fell.

At year end, the Portfolio was underweight U.S. real duration, given low real yields, while emphasizing countries with stronger fundamentals and higher real yields than the U.S. Within TIPS, the Portfolio is concentrate in intermediate maturities that offer the best potential for price appreciation and “roll down,” given the suppression of real yields on shorter maturities. In addition, the Portfolio captured duration and long-term inflation by overweighting long-dated TIPS. At year end, the Portfolio had a modest exposure to mortgages, including commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) that are senior in the capital structure and agency mortgages, which offered an attractive source of yield. With regard to credit, the Portfolio maintained an overweight to well-capitalized U.S. financials, given their strong fundamentals. Additionally, the Portfolio continued to maintain exposure to emerging market sovereign and corporate credits, such as those in Mexico and Brazil, that have strong credit fundamentals and higher real yields. Finally, the Portfolio focused on the U.S. dollar as a safe-haven while maintaining positions that could gain from a depreciation of the euro.

Mihir P. Worah

Managing Director

Pacific Investment Management Company LLC

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Managed by Pacific Investment Management Company LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Issuers

	% of Net Assets
U.S. Treasury Inflation Indexed Notes		48.8
U.S. Treasury Inflation Indexed Bonds		37.5
Japan Treasury Bills		4.4
Australia Government Bond		2.3
Westpac Banking Corp.		1.6
ING Bank N.V.		1.6
Royal Bank of Scotland plc (The)		1.6
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.		1.5
Citigroup, Inc.		1.4
Commonwealth Bank of Australia		1.3

Top Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies		58.7
Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities		16.6
Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities		5.4
Mortgage-Backed Securities		5.2
Asset-Backed Securities		3.2
Loan Participation		0.5
Cash & Cash Equivalents		10.4

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio managed by

Pacific Investment Management Company LLC vs. Barclays Capital U.S. TIPS Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		5 Year		Since Inception3
PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond
Portfolio—Class A		11.48%		8.13%		6.61%
Class B		11.14%		7.84%		6.34%
Class E		11.18%		7.95%		7.30%
Barclays Capital U.S. TIPS Index1		13.56%		7.95%		6.56%

The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other classes of shares because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹The Barclays Capital U.S. TIPS Index is an unmanaged market index comprised of all U.S. Treasury Inflation Protected Securities rated investment grade (Baa3 or better), have at least one year to final maturity, and at least $250 million par amount outstanding.

² “Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

³ Inception of Class A and Class B shares is 5/1/2003. Inception of Class E shares is 5/1/2006. Index returns are based on an inception date of 5/1/2003.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A
Actual		0.52%	$	1,000.00	$	1,058.70	$	2.70
Hypothetical*		0.52%		1,000.00		1,022.58		2.65
Class B
Actual		0.77%	$	1,000.00	$	1,057.10	$	3.99
Hypothetical*		0.77%		1,000.00		1,021.32		3.92
Class E
Actual		0.67%	$	1,000.00	$	1,057.10	$	3.47
Hypothetical*		0.67%		1,000.00		1,021.82		3.41

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—90.7% of Net Assets

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed—2.0%
Fannie Mae 15 Yr. Pool 4.500%, 04/01/23		1,716,808	$	1,832,377
4.500%, 04/01/24		8,628,953		9,209,821
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool 5.500%, 12/01/36		2,451,248		2,674,628
Fannie Mae ARM Pool 2.521%, 11/01/34 (a)		1,941,834		2,062,110
1.418%, 07/01/44 (a)		42,026		42,325
1.418%, 09/01/44 (a)		68,182		68,690
Fannie Mae REMICS Series 2004-63 Class FA 0.444%, 08/25/34 (a)		214,895		209,812
Series 2006-118 Class A2 0.317%, 12/25/36 (a)		157,088		150,085
Series 2006-S Class 3A2 2.381%, 05/25/35 (a)		990,517		1,036,780
Series 2007-65 Class KF 0.674%, 07/25/37 (a)		186,935		186,796
Series 2007-73 Class A1 0.354%, 07/25/37 (a)		1,626,829		1,563,340
Series 2011-3 Class FA 0.974%, 02/25/41 (a)		10,731,160		10,830,346
Fannie Mae Whole Loan 0.644%, 05/25/42 (a)		132,381		132,597
Freddie Mac ARM Non-Gold Pool 2.490%, 01/01/34 (a)		175,431		184,788
Freddie Mac REMICS Series 2752 Class FM 0.628%, 12/15/30 (a)		67,318		67,326
Series 3172 Class FK 0.728%, 08/15/33 (a)		11,378,245		11,375,316
Series 3335 Class AF 0.428%, 10/15/20 (a)		1,526,372		1,523,329
Series 3346 Class FA 0.508%, 02/15/19 (a)		4,110,187		4,105,858
Freddie Mac Structured Pass-Through Securities Series T-32 Class A1 0.554%, 08/25/31 (a)		88,133		85,767
Series T-62 Class 1A1 1.399%, 10/25/44 (a)		5,257,594		5,145,779
Series T-63 Class 1A1 1.418%, 02/25/45 (a)		1,566,097		1,497,174
Ginnie Mae 0.585%, 03/20/37 (a)		12,392,288		12,403,572
				66,388,616
Federal Agencies—2.2%
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. 0.247%, 03/21/13 (a)		50,300,000	$	50,358,197
Federal National Mortgage Association 1.250%, 03/14/14		10,700,000		10,885,035
5.375%, 04/11/22		1,700,000		1,721,374
National Credit Union Administration Guaranteed Notes Series 2010-R1 Class 1A 0.724%, 10/07/20 (a)		5,459,726		5,465,677
Series 2010-R3 Class 2A 0.834%, 12/08/20 (a)		6,681,664		6,708,792
				75,139,075
U.S. Treasury—86.5%
U.S. Treasury Inflation Indexed Bonds 2.375%, 01/15/25		155,112,609		197,404,992
2.000%, 01/15/26		90,003,291		110,746,259
2.375%, 01/15/27 (e)		136,144,350		175,998,430
1.750%, 01/15/28		159,057,210		191,477,523
3.625%, 04/15/28		94,342,692		140,393,719
2.500%, 01/15/29†† (e)		56,950,233		76,104,191
3.875%, 04/15/29		132,551,614		206,915,191
3.375%, 04/15/32		2,168,690		3,346,391
2.125%, 02/15/40		26,606,864		35,771,678
2.125%, 02/15/41††		108,330,395		146,593,015
U.S. Treasury Inflation Indexed Notes 3.375%, 01/15/12 (f)		3,654,809		3,658,237
2.000%, 04/15/12		47,090,136		47,325,587
3.000%, 07/15/12		137,283,460		140,318,661
0.625%, 04/15/13		26,461,110		26,924,179
2.000%, 01/15/14		244,667,690		259,252,086
1.250%, 04/15/14 (f)		71,675,951		75,153,381
2.000%, 07/15/14		69,551,621		74,979,916
1.625%, 01/15/15		50,636,649		54,644,084
0.500%, 04/15/15		12,538,440		13,127,157
2.000%, 01/15/16		22,475,139		25,135,274
0.125%, 04/15/16		39,495,225		41,198,457
2.375%, 01/15/17		97,125,660		112,802,324
2.625%, 07/15/17		123,549,193		147,149,066
1.625%, 01/15/18		48,530,614		55,317,329

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
U.S. Treasury—(Continued)
1.375%, 07/15/18		5,880,392	$	6,664,137
1.375%, 01/15/20††		107,357,799		122,337,540
1.250%, 07/15/20††		147,107,093		166,529,790
1.125%, 01/15/21		9,523,104		10,629,422
0.625%, 07/15/21††		268,989,843		288,008,231
U.S. Treasury Notes 2.000%, 11/15/21		7,000,000		7,080,941
				2,962,987,188
Total U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies (Cost $3,075,666,558)				3,104,514,879
Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—25.6%
Capital Markets—0.3%
Banco Mercantil del Norte S.A. 4.375%, 07/19/15 (144A)		5,600,000		5,677,000
UBS AG Series BKNT 2.250%, 08/12/13		2,600,000		2,577,830
				8,254,830
Commercial Banks—12.8%
ABN Amro Bank N.V. 2.198%, 01/30/14 (144A)(a)		13,800,000		13,467,655
ANZ National International, Ltd. 0.919%, 08/19/14 (144A)(a)		5,000,000		5,027,370
Banco Bradesco S.A. of the Cayman Islands 2.561%, 05/16/14 (144A)(a)		16,200,000		15,911,689
Banco Santander Brazil S.A. 2.659%, 03/18/14 (144A)(a)		1,200,000		1,143,944
4.250%, 01/14/16 (144A)		5,500,000		5,252,500
BBVA Bancomer S.A. 6.500%, 03/10/21 (144A)		6,700,000		6,490,625
BPCE S.A. 2.375%, 10/04/13 (144A)		10,740,000		10,406,620
Commonwealth Bank of Australia 0.814%, 07/12/13 (144A)(a)		29,700,000		29,699,525
1.074%, 06/25/14 (144A)(a)		7,900,000		7,946,926
Commercial Banks—(Continued)
0.839%, 09/17/14 (144A)(a)		7,500,000	$	7,505,745
Credit Agricole S.A. 1.162%, 07/21/14 (144A)(a)		2,000,000		1,922,878
Dexia Credit Local S.A. 0.927%, 03/05/13 (144A)(a)		4,800,000		4,545,216
0.908%, 04/29/14 (144A)(a)		32,400,000		29,413,303
ICICI Bank, Ltd. 2.256%, 02/24/14 (144A)(a)		4,500,000		4,275,509
ING Bank Australia, Ltd. Series RTD 5.150%, 06/24/14 (AUD)(a)		800,000		828,537
ING Bank N.V. 1.379%, 03/30/12 (144A)(a)		26,100,000		26,038,717
1.725%, 10/18/13 (144A)(a)		7,300,000		7,091,162
1.940%, 06/09/14 (144A)(a)		23,200,000		22,236,458
Intesa Sanpaolo 2.906%, 02/24/14 (144A)(a)		27,700,000		24,403,201
LeasePlan Corp. N.V. 3.000%, 05/07/12 (144A)		5,200,000		5,240,165
National Australia Bank, Ltd. 5.350%, 06/12/13 (144A)		3,000,000		3,133,776
0.891%, 07/08/14 (144A)(a)		15,500,000		15,568,681
NIBC Bank N.V. 2.800%, 12/02/14 (144A)		24,000,000		25,087,056
Nordea Bank AB 1.301%, 01/14/14 (144A)(a)		26,000,000		25,188,254
Royal Bank of Scotland plc (The) Series 1 2.915%, 08/23/13 (a)		17,500,000		16,831,867
Series EMTN 1.316%, 04/23/12 (a)		800,000		801,286
Series MTN 0.783%, 03/30/12 (144A)(a)		36,500,000		36,496,532

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Commercial Banks—(Continued)
Santander US Debt S.A. Unipersonal 1.379%, 03/30/12 (144A)(a)		22,000,000	$	21,962,248
Svenska Handelsbanken AB 1.544%, 09/14/12 (144A)(a)		3,800,000		3,818,422
Toronto Dominion Bank (The) 1.625%, 09/14/16 (144A)		200,000		197,589
Turkiye Garanti Bankasi A.S. 2.909%, 04/20/16 (144A)(a)		1,800,000		1,638,000
Westpac Banking Corp. 0.734%, 12/14/12 (144A)(a)		43,500,000		43,554,157
3.585%, 08/14/14 (144A)		6,700,000		7,147,560
2.700%, 12/09/14 (144A)		4,900,000		5,127,345
Westpac Securities NZ, Ltd. 2.500%, 05/25/12 (144A)		4,000,000		4,024,856
				439,425,374
Consumer Finance—0.2%
FCE Bank plc Series EMTN 7.125%, 01/16/12 (EUR)		2,500,000		3,249,360
Hyundai Capital Services, Inc. 4.375%, 07/27/16 (144A)		3,100,000		3,164,815
RCI Banque S.A. 2.261%, 04/11/14 (144A)(a)		1,600,000		1,525,830
				7,940,005
Diversified Financial Services—1.6%
Instituto de Credito Oficial 3.154%, 03/25/14 (EUR)(a)		20,800,000		25,216,932
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. Series B 2.600%, 01/20/12 (144A)		1,400,000		1,400,026
TransCapitalInvest, Ltd. 7.700%, 08/07/13 (144A)		2,700,000		2,910,832
Vita Capital III, Ltd. Series B-II 1.492%, 01/01/12 (144A)(a)		800,000		800,000
Diversified Financial Services—(Continued)
Volkswagen International Finance N.V. 0.824%, 10/01/12 (144A)(a)		25,100,000	$	25,080,096
				55,407,886
Diversified Telecommunication Services—0.5%
TDC A.S. Series EMTN 3.500%, 02/23/15 (EUR)		9,400,000		12,601,924
Telefonica Emisiones SAU 0.763%, 02/04/13 (a)		6,000,000		5,771,082
				18,373,006
Media—0.0%
Videotron Ltee 6.875%, 01/15/14		1,215,000		1,224,113
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—0.5%
Petrobras International Finance Co. 3.875%, 01/27/16		13,800,000		14,285,912
Petroleos Mexicanos 5.500%, 01/21/21		1,900,000		2,071,000
				16,356,912
Sovereign—9.6%
Australia Government Bond Series 132 5.500%, 01/21/18 (AUD)		9,900,000		11,300,558
Series 20CI 4.000%, 08/20/20 (AUD)		21,200,000		40,345,646
Series 25CI 3.000%, 09/20/25 (AUD)		17,700,000		23,365,176
Series CAIN408 2.500%, 09/20/30 (AUD)		2,500,000		3,089,324
Canadian Government Bond 1.500%, 12/01/44 (CAD)		2,612,325		3,332,323
Series L256 4.250%, 12/01/21 (CAD)		3,198,778		4,499,208
Italy Buoni Poliennali Del Tesoro Series CPI 2.100%, 09/15/16 (EUR)		3,210,546		3,615,670
2.100%, 09/15/21 (EUR)		21,067,011		20,222,304

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Sovereign—(Continued)
Japan Treasury Bills Series 232 0.101%, 01/30/12 (JPY)(b)		10,810,000,000	$	140,398,438
Series 234
0.101%, 02/13/12 (JPY)(b)		790,000,000		10,260,016
New South Wales Treasury Corp. Series CIB1 2.750%, 11/20/25 (AUD)		8,300,000		10,093,040
United Kingdom Gilt
4.750%, 12/07/30 (GBP)		100,000		201,547
4.750%, 12/07/38 (GBP)		2,000,000		4,149,222
4.250%, 12/07/40 (GBP)		19,000,000		36,335,983
United Kingdom Gilt Inflation Linked 1.875%, 11/22/22 (GBP)		8,332,200		16,540,469
				327,748,924
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance—0.1%
Achmea Hypotheekbank N.V. 3.200%, 11/03/14 (144A)		3,647,000		3,829,930
Total Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities (Cost $887,462,708)				878,560,980
Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—8.4%
Capital Markets—2.8%
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The) 1.762%, 11/15/14 (EUR)(a)		15,400,000		17,754,963
Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. 0.000%, 11/24/08 (c)		300,000		78,000
0.000%, 12/23/08 (c)		6,300,000		1,638,000
0.000%, 09/26/14 (c)		700,000		188,125
0.000%, 09/27/27 (c)		400,000		104,500
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Series EMTN 2.154%, 09/27/12 (EUR)(a)		3,000,000		3,769,546
1.850%, 01/31/14 (EUR)(a)		3,400,000		3,883,454
1.777%, 05/30/14 (EUR)(a)		2,000,000		2,241,241
Capital Markets—(Continued)
1.771%, 08/25/14 (EUR)(a)		3,000,000	$	3,297,248
Series MTN
0.757%, 06/05/12 (a)		5,300,000		5,199,544
6.050%, 08/15/12		22,200,000		22,523,964
Morgan Stanley Series EMTN 1.807%, 03/01/13 (EUR)(a)		2,600,000		3,198,139
Series GMTN
2.953%, 05/14/13 (a)		14,800,000		14,216,910
1.775%, 11/29/13 (EUR)(a)		7,300,000		8,687,417
0.691%, 01/09/14 (a)		8,925,000		8,078,946
				94,859,997
Chemicals—0.1%
Dow Chemical Co. (The) 4.850%, 08/15/12		2,000,000		2,046,464
Commercial Banks—0.3%
HSBC Finance Corp. 0.756%, 07/19/12 (a)		3,932,000		3,873,622
0.653%, 01/15/14 (a)		3,800,000		3,502,281
Series EMTN
1.807%, 04/05/13 (EUR)(a)		1,100,000		1,378,294
Wachovia Bank N.A. Series BKNT 0.812%, 11/03/14 (a)		1,700,000		1,603,636
Wachovia Corp. Series EMTN 1.614%, 02/13/14 (EUR)(a)		500,000		626,095
				10,983,928
Computers & Peripherals—0.2%
Lexmark International, Inc. 5.900%, 06/01/13		5,000,000		5,228,285
Consumer Finance—1.2%
Ally Financial, Inc.
3.649%, 02/11/14 (a)		17,600,000		16,722,288
3.963%, 06/20/14 (a)		1,300,000		1,222,208
8.300%, 02/12/15		500,000		528,750
Series UNRE
7.000%, 02/01/12		4,300,000		4,321,500

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Consumer Finance—(Continued)
Ford Motor Credit Co. LLC 7.800%, 06/01/12		400,000	$	408,562
7.000%, 04/15/15		16,200,000		17,455,500
				40,658,808
Diversified Financial Services—1.9%
Bank of America Corp. Series 170 1.148%, 06/11/12 (GBP)(a)		2,300,000		3,514,365
Citigroup, Inc.
5.250%, 02/27/12		4,000,000		4,018,468
5.300%, 10/17/12		11,000,000		11,180,873
1.307%, 02/15/13 (a)		19,500,000		19,142,877
2.453%, 08/13/13 (a)		4,000,000		3,927,948
6.000%, 12/13/13		2,300,000		2,381,034
0.715%, 11/05/14 (a)		1,400,000		1,277,405
Series EMTN
1.609%, 03/05/14 (EUR)(a)		1,400,000		1,706,871
7.375%, 06/16/14 (EUR)		3,400,000		4,708,499
International Lease Finance Corp. 6.625%, 11/15/13		1,100,000		1,100,000
6.500%, 09/01/14 (144A)		1,500,000		1,541,250
5.750%, 05/15/16		4,400,000		4,085,017
6.750%, 09/01/16 (144A)		1,300,000		1,339,000
7.125%, 09/01/18 (144A)		2,700,000		2,808,000
Racers Series 2005-22E 0.811%, 07/25/17 (144A)(a)(d)		1,577,982		1,538,927
				64,270,534
Household Durables—0.3%
Black & Decker Corp. (The) 8.950%, 04/15/14		2,000,000		2,310,936
D.R. Horton, Inc. 5.250%, 02/15/15		7,500,000		7,631,250
				9,942,186
Insurance — 0.3%
American International Group, Inc.
8.250%, 08/15/18		1,700,000		1,804,042
6.400%, 12/15/20		7,100,000		7,177,631
8.175%, 05/15/58 (a)		2,700,000		2,430,000
				11,411,673
Media—0.3%
CCO Operating LLC/CCO Operating Capital Corp. 8.000%, 04/30/12 (144A)		5,000,000	$	5,125,000
EchoStar DBS Corp. 7.000%, 10/01/13		6,200,000		6,649,500
				11,774,500
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—1.0%
EOG Resources, Inc. 1.182%, 02/03/14 (a)		14,600,000		14,650,983
Petroleos Mexicanos 6.500%, 06/02/41		2,500,000		2,825,000
Pricoa Global Funding 1 0.704%, 06/26/12 (144A)(a)		17,300,000		17,243,827
				34,719,810
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance—0.0%
Countrywide Financial Corp. Series MTN 5.800%, 06/07/12		1,400,000		1,403,091
Total Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities (Cost $304,332,265)				287,299,276
Mortgage-Backed Securities—8.1%
Collateralized-Mortgage Obligations—5.2%
American General Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2010-1A Class A1 5.150%, 03/25/58 (144A)(a)		5,437,069		5,568,581
Arran Residential Mortgages Funding plc Series 2010-1A Class A1B 2.659%, 05/16/47 (144A)(EUR)(a)		846,861		1,097,044
Series 2011-1A Class A1B 2.660%, 11/19/47 (144A)(EUR)(a)		12,541,131		16,245,520
Series 2011-1A Class A2B 2.910%, 11/19/47 (144A)(EUR)(a)		7,200,000		9,293,239
Banc of America Funding Corp. Series 2006-A Class 1A1 2.657%, 02/20/36 (a)		2,597,771		2,167,008

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Collateralized-Mortgage Obligations—(Continued)
Banc of America Mortgage Securities, Inc. Series 2004-1 Class 5A1 6.500%, 09/25/33		113,155	$	119,262
Series 2004-J Class 4A1 5.011%, 11/25/34 (a)		210,656		177,427
Series 2005-E Class 2A1 2.843%, 06/25/35 (a)		661,465		522,111
Series 2005-H Class 2A1 2.764%, 09/25/35 (a)		372,790		284,964
BCAP LLC Trust Series 2011-RR5 Class 12A1 5.636%, 03/26/37 (144A)(a)		2,700,000		1,992,600
Series 2011-RR5 Class 5A1 5.250%, 08/26/37(144A)		10,300,000		10,094,000
Bear Stearns Adjustable Rate Mortgage Trust Series 2004-10 Class 21A1 2.918%, 01/25/35 (a)		4,221,219		3,614,138
Series 2005-1 Class 2A1 2.727%, 03/25/35 (a)		980,063		758,857
Series 2005-2 Class A1 2.710%, 03/25/35 (a)		2,135,837		1,990,032
Series 2005-2 Class A2 3.016%, 03/25/35 (a)		14,352		13,573
Series 2005-5 Class A1 2.220%, 08/25/35 (a)		305,472		281,771
Bear Stearns ALT-A Trust Series 2005-7 Class 22A1 2.772%, 09/25/35 (a)		2,506,905		1,589,859
Series 2006-8 Class 3A1 0.454%, 02/25/34 (a)		378,994		278,524
Bear Stearns Structured Products, Inc. Series 2007-R6 Class 1A1 2.553%, 01/26/36 (a)		956,207		562,415
Chase Mortgage Finance Corp. Series 2007-A1 Class 5A1 2.751%, 02/25/37 (a)		366,163		309,744
Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Inc. Series 2005-11 A1A 2.660%, 05/25/35 (a)		102,791		88,574
Collateralized-Mortgage Obligations—(Continued)
Series 2005-11 Class A2A 2.580%, 10/25/35 (a)		6,984,157	$	5,739,801
Series 2005-6 Class A1 2.230%, 09/25/35 (a)		473,429		422,802
Series 2005-6 Class A2 2.450%, 09/25/35 (a)		438,552		349,935
Countrywide Alternative Loan Trust Series 2005-11CB Class 2A6 5.500%, 06/25/35		1,200,000		977,125
Series 2005-61 Class 2A1 0.574%, 12/25/35 (a)		55,297		33,047
Series 2006-OA19 Class A1 0.465%, 02/20/47 (a)		1,792,165		801,828
Series 2007-OA4 Class A1 0.464%, 05/25/47 (a)		12,278,761		6,615,072
Series 2007-OA7 Class A1A 0.474%, 05/25/47 (a)		622,935		317,374
Countrywide Home Loan Mortgage Pass-Through Trust Series 2003-HYB3 Class 7A1 2.763%, 11/19/33 (a)		73,961		69,668
Series 2004-12 Class 11A1 2.795%, 08/25/34 (a)		420,904		290,687
Series 2004-HYB7 Class 5A 4.941%, 11/20/34 (a)		958,433		795,130
Series 2005-3 Class 1A2 0.584%, 04/25/35 (a)		1,469,837		808,315
Series 2005-R2 Class 1AF1 0.634%, 06/25/35(144A) (a)		303,747		256,134
Deutsche Alt-A Securities, Inc. Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2006-AB4 Class A1B1 0.394%, 10/25/36 (a)		65,887		24,248
Series 2006-AB4 Class A6A1 5.869%, 10/25/36		1,159,027		588,796
Series 2006-AB4 Class A6A2 5.886%, 10/25/36		1,159,027		634,397
Deutsche Mortgage Securities, Inc. Series 2010-RS2 Class A1 1.510%, 06/28/47 (144A) (a)		708,377		701,449
First Horizon Alternative Mortgage Securities Series 2004-AA1 Class A1 2.316%, 06/25/34 (a)		508,331		427,923

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Collateralized-Mortgage Obligations—(Continued)
Fosse Master Issuer plc Series 2011-1A Class A2 1.805%, 10/18/54 (144A)(a)		13,300,000	$	13,249,314
Granite Master Issuer plc Series 2006-3 Class A3 0.325%, 12/20/54 (a)		1,525,338		1,456,698
Series 2006-3 Class A7 0.385%, 12/20/54 (a)		415,737		397,029
Series 2006-4 Class A6 0.465%, 12/20/54 (a)		332,590		317,623
Granite Mortgages plc Series 2004-3 Class 3A2 1.450%, 09/20/44 (GBP)(a)		1,427,953		2,122,340
Greenpoint Mortgage Funding Trust Series 2005-AR1 Class A2 0.514%, 06/25/45 (a)		603,534		355,884
Series 2005-AR5 Class 1A1 0.564%, 11/25/45 (a)		269,752		144,857
Series 2006-AR6 Class A1A 0.374%, 10/25/46 (a)		81,094		74,539
GSR Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2005-AR1 Class 1A1 2.853%, 01/25/35 (a)		753,734		633,237
Series 2005-AR3 Class 6A1 2.767%, 05/25/35 (a)		1,258,809		944,963
Series 2005-AR6 Class 2A1 2.685%, 09/25/35 (a)		971,605		850,108
Series 2005-AR7 Class 5A1 5.166%, 11/25/35 (a)		2,178,319		1,780,540
Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2005-2 Class 2A1A 0.505%, 05/19/35 (a)		156,801		83,250
Series 2005-13 Class 2A11 0.565%, 02/19/36 (a)		309,061		159,814
Holmes Master Issuer plc Series 2011-1A Class A3 2.922%, 10/15/54 (144A)(EUR)(a)		15,300,000		19,782,704
Indymac Index Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2005-AR1 Class 2A1 5.066%, 11/25/35 (a)		2,180,261		1,613,201
Collateralized-Mortgage Obligations—(Continued)
JPMorgan Mortgage Trust Series 2005-A1 Class 6T1 5.024%, 02/25/35 (a)		1,938,776	$	1,887,379
Series 2005-A3 Class 2A1 5.162%, 06/25/35 (a)		4,190,051		4,028,711
Series 2005-A6 Class 2A1 2.773%, 08/25/35 (a)		832,163		692,064
Series 2005-A6 Class 4A1 5.379%, 09/25/35 (a)		364,772		298,484
Series 2005-A6 Class 7A1 2.704%, 08/25/35 (a)		1,121,833		772,406
Series 2007-A1 Class 1A1 2.810%, 07/25/35 (a)		716,929		643,578
Series 2007-A1 Class 3A3 2.798%, 07/25/35 (a)		670,488		624,085
Series 2008-R2 Class 1A1 5.137%, 07/27/37 (144A)(a)		1,786,361		1,416,768
Master Adjustable Rate Mortgages Trust Series 2003-6 Class 2A1 2.384%, 12/25/33 (a)		448,780		390,305
Series 2004-13 Class 3A7 2.718%, 11/21/34 (a)		600,000		551,436
Mellon Residential Funding Corp. Series 2000-TBC3 Class A1 0.718%, 12/15/30 (a)		92,773		84,963
Series 2001-TBC1 Class A1 0.978%, 11/15/31 (a)		789,472		758,278
Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc. Series 2005-A9 Class 5A1 5.136%, 12/25/35 (a)		735,885		617,947
MLCC Mortgage Investors, Inc. Series 2005-2 Class 1A 1.996%, 10/25/35 (a)		2,303,642		1,943,963
Series 2005-2 Class 3A1 1.270%, 10/25/35 (a)		483,919		384,697
Series 2005-3 Class 4A 0.544%, 11/25/35 (a)		312,318		257,617
Permanent Master Issuer plc Series 2011-1A Class 1A3 2.872%, 07/15/42 (144A)(EUR)(a)		1,500,000		1,937,282
RBSSP Resecuritization Trust Series 2010-1 Class 2A1 2.221%, 07/26/45 (144A)(a)		13,896,533		12,935,004

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Collateralized-Mortgage Obligations—(Continued)
Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. Series 2005-QO1 Class A1 0.594%, 08/25/35 (a)		245,879	$	132,381
Series 2005-QO2 Class A1 1.568%, 09/25/45 (a)		260,368		136,618
Securitized Asset Sales, Inc. Series 1993-6 Class A5 0.008%, 11/26/23 (a)		4,801		4,465
Sequoia Mortgage Trust Series 2007-3 Class 1A1 0.485%, 07/20/36 (a)		2,764,675		1,984,872
Series 5 Class A 0.635%, 10/19/26 (a)		184,790		156,779
Structured Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2004-1 Class 4A2 2.480%, 02/25/34 (a)		345,518		310,518
Series 2004-18 Class 5A 5.500%, 12/25/34 (a)		1,536,821		1,390,194
Series 2004-19 Class 2A1 1.618%, 01/25/35 (a)		195,473		110,342
Structured Asset Mortgage Investments, Inc. Series 2004-AR5 Class 1A1 0.945%, 10/19/34 (a)		174,823		144,485
Series 2005-AR5 Class A1 0.535%, 07/19/35 (a)		346,616		213,531
Series 2006-AR4 Class 2A1 0.484%, 06/25/36 (a)		160,726		94,029
Series 2006-AR5 Class 1A1 0.504%, 05/25/46 (a)		71,738		34,185
SWAN Environment Pvt., Ltd. Series 2010-1 Class A 5.747%, 04/25/41 (AUD)(a)		604,769		610,333
TBW Mortgage Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-2 Class A6A 6.015%, 07/25/37		476,569		292,990
Thornburg Mortgage Securities Trust Series 2007-2 Class A2A 0.387%, 06/25/37 (a)		1,404,916		1,395,633
Series 2007-4 Class 3A1 6.054%, 09/25/37 (a)		4,498,019		4,390,122
Collateralized-Mortgage Obligations—(Continued)
WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2002-AR17 Class 1A 1.408%, 11/25/42 (a)		38,814	$	30,346
Series 2005-AR10 Class 3A1 5.550%, 08/25/35 (a)		671,888		556,041
Series 2005-AR13 Class A1A1 0.584%, 10/25/45 (a)		1,794,568		1,296,108
Series 2005-AR14 Class 2A1 5.152%, 12/25/35 (a)		433,191		356,385
Series 2005-AR15 Class A1A1 0.554%, 11/25/45 (a)		284,825		203,389
Series 2006-AR15 Class 2A 1.708%, 11/25/46 (a)		409,105		262,296
Series 2006-AR17 Class 1A1A 1.018%, 12/25/46 (a)		165,694		98,286
Series 2006-AR3 Class A1A 1.208%, 02/25/46 (a)		286,797		189,738
Series 2006-AR7 Class 3A 2.718%, 07/25/46 (a)		1,153,986		753,776
Series 2006-AR9 Class 1A 1.208%, 08/25/46 (a)		12,306,222		6,897,422
Series 2007-OA4 Class 1A 0.978%, 05/25/47 (a)		707,327		406,914
Wells Fargo Mortgage Backed Securities Trust Series 2004-S Class A1 2.701%, 09/25/34 (a)		1,029,224		1,015,960
Series 2004-W Class A1 2.608%, 11/25/34 (a)		468,574		438,836
Series 2005-AR16 Class 6A3 2.721%, 10/25/35 (a)		42,114		36,375
Series 2006-AR4 Class 2A4 5.617%, 04/25/36 (a)		1,000,000		867,021
Series 2006-AR6 Class 3A1 2.689%, 03/25/36 (a)		296,857		237,380
Series 2006-AR8 Class 2A1 2.696%, 04/25/36 (a)		1,867,419		1,440,313
				177,582,105
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities—2.9%
Banc of America Commercial Mortgage, Inc. Series 2007-3 Class A2 5.622%, 06/10/49 (a)		527,546		533,218

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)
Series 2007-3 Class A2FL 0.446%, 06/10/49 (144A)(a)		527,546	$	521,073
Series 2007-3 Class A4 5.622%, 06/10/49 (a)		1,100,000		1,184,185
Series 2007-4 Class A4 5.724%, 02/10/51 (a)		1,100,000		1,208,547
Banc of America Large Loan, Inc. Series 2007-BMB1 Class A1 0.788%, 08/15/29 (144A)(a)		3,622,750		3,408,333
Series 2009-UB1 Class A4A 5.691%, 06/24/50 (144A)(a)		1,700,000		1,868,375
Series 2010-HLTN Class HLTN 2.028%, 11/15/15 (144A)(a)		22,239,377		20,141,548
Series 2010-UB5 Class A4A 5.639%, 02/17/51 (144A)(a)		1,000,000		1,097,205
BCRR Trust Series 2010-LEAF Class 44A 4.230%, 04/22/34 (144A)		6,762,346		6,766,816
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2010-C1 Class A1 3.156%, 07/10/46 (144A)		2,442,229		2,514,477
Credit Suisse Mortgage Capital Certificates Series 2009-RR1 Class A3A 5.383%, 02/15/40 (144A)		1,600,000		1,746,921
Series 2010-RR4 Class 2A 5.467%, 07/16/16 (144A)(a)		2,000,000		2,213,224
GS Mortgage Securities Corp. II Series 2007-EOP Class A2 1.317%, 03/06/20 (144A)(a)		3,600,000		3,568,477
Series 2010-C1 Class A2 4.592%, 08/10/43 (144A)		19,525,000		21,524,819
Indus (Eclipse 2007-1X) plc Series 2007-1X Class A 1.155%, 01/25/20 (GBP)(a)		2,447,154		3,079,439
JPMorgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp. Series 2007-CB20 Class A4 5.794%, 02/12/51 (a)		1,500,000		1,658,517
Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investments, Inc. Series 2007-9 Class A4 5.700%, 09/12/49		5,400,000		5,770,921
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)
RBSCF Trust Series 2010-RR4 Class CMLA 6.008%, 12/16/49 (144A)(a)		2,600,000	$	2,927,285
Vornado DP LLC Series 2010-VNO Class A2FX-4 4.004%, 09/13/28 (144A)		7,000,000		7,546,497
Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust Series 2004-C14 Class A4 5.088%, 08/15/41 (a)		1,500,000		1,608,815
Series 2006-WL7A Class A1 0.368%, 09/15/21 (144A)(a)		5,311,594		5,052,139
Series 2007-WHL8 Class A1 0.358%, 06/15/20 (144A)(a)		3,399,816		3,043,502
				98,984,333
Total Mortgage-Backed Securities (Cost $290,264,346)				276,566,438
Asset-Backed Securities—5.0%
Asset-Backed - Automobile—0.1%
Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust Series 2009-A Class A3B 2.778%, 05/15/13 (a)		873,287		874,968
Magnolia Funding, Ltd. Series 2010-1A Class A1 3.000%, 04/20/17 (144A)(EUR)(d)		990,042		1,277,637
				2,152,605
Asset-Backed - Credit Card—0.7%
Citibank Omni Master Trust Series 2009-A14A Class A14 3.028%, 08/15/18 (144A) (a)		7,100,000		7,453,008
Series 2009-A8 Class A8
2.378%, 05/16/16 (144A)(a)		16,600,000		16,703,499
				24,156,507
Asset-Backed - Home Equity—0.5%
ACE Securities Corp. Series 2006-NC3 Class A2A 0.344%, 12/25/36 (a)		12,340		12,155

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Asset-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Asset-Backed - Home Equity—(Continued)
Asset Backed Funding Certificates Series 2004-OPT5 Class A1 0.644%, 06/25/34 (a)		814,231	$	581,139
Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities Trust Series 2002-2 Class A1 0.954%, 10/25/32 (a)		23,413		20,068
Series 2006-HE9 Class 1A1
0.344%, 11/25/36 (a)		9,441		9,140
Series 2007-HE7 Class 1A1
1.294%, 10/25/37 (a)		3,523,240		1,954,800
Carrington Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2005-NC5 Class A2 0.614%, 10/25/35(a)		273,556		252,135
Countrywide Asset-Backed Certificates Series 2005-13 Class 3AV3 0.544%, 04/25/36 (a)		394,020		337,624
Series 2006-4 Class 2A2
0.474%, 07/25/36 (a)		5,789,543		4,732,873
Credit-Based Asset Servicing and Securitization LLC Series 2007-CB6 Class A1 0.414%, 07/25/37 (144A)(a)		248,159		175,888
CSAB Mortgage Backed Trust Series 2006-2 Class A6A 5.720%, 09/25/36		1,236,772		785,870
Equity One ABS, Inc. Series 2004-1 Class AV2 0.594%, 04/25/34 (a)		118,179		83,699
First NLC Trust Series 2007-1 Class A1 0.364%, 08/25/37 (144A)(a)		1,707,356		546,318
Household Home Equity Loan Trust Series 2006-2 Class A1 0.435%, 03/20/36 (a)		2,397,412		2,216,793
HSI Asset Securitization Corp. Trust Series 2006-HE1 Class 2A1 0.344%, 10/25/36 (a)		10,795		3,559
JPMorgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp. Series 2007-HE1 Class AV1 0.354%, 03/25/47 (a)		642,352		528,106
Asset-Backed - Home Equity—(Continued)
Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Trust Series 2006-MLN1 Class A2A 0.364%, 07/25/37 (a)		615	$	607
Morgan Stanley Capital, Inc. Series 2006-2 Class A1 0.344%, 11/25/36 (a)		936		245
Park Place Securities, Inc. Series 2004-WWF1 Class M2 0.974%, 12/25/34 (a)		3,697,376		3,517,565
Series 2005-WCW1 Class A1B
0.554%, 09/25/35 (a)		30,826		27,142
Soundview Home Equity Loan Trust Series 2006-NLC1 Class A1 0.354%, 11/25/36 (144A)(a)		67,646		19,326
Structured Asset Securities Corp. Series 2005-7XS Class 2A1A 1.757%, 04/25/35 (a)		703,793		540,443
Series 2006-11 Class A1
2.650%, 10/25/35 (144A)(a)		307,728		243,371
Series 2007-BC3 Class 2A2
0.434%, 05/25/47 (a)		3,200,000		2,130,627
				18,719,493
Asset-Backed - Other—2.2%
Alzette European CLO S.A. Series 2004-1A Class A2 0.866%, 12/15/20 (144A)(a)		850,176		824,490
American Money Management Corp. Series 2006-6A Class A1A 0.731%, 05/03/18 (144A)(a)		491,819		470,291
Aquilae CLO plc Series 2006-1X Class A 2.057%, 01/17/23 (EUR)(a)		3,596,685		4,233,399
ARES CLO, Ltd. Series 2006-6RA Class A1B 0.768%, 03/12/18 (144A)(a)		2,229,509		2,125,558

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Asset-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Asset-Backed - Other—(Continued)
Babson CLO, Ltd. Series 2004-2A Class A2A 0.777%, 11/15/16 (144A)(a)		1,552,249	$	1,510,929
Conseco Finance Securitizations Corp. Series 2002-1 Class A 6.681%, 12/01/33 (a)		5,862,440		6,197,257
Cumberland CLO, Ltd. Series 2005-2A Class A 0.694%, 11/10/19 (144A)(a)		4,903,823		4,721,644
Duane Street CLO Series 2005-1A Class A2 0.688%, 11/08/17 (144A)(a)		1,649,638		1,582,587
First CLO, Ltd. Series 2004-2X1 Class A2 0.854%, 12/14/16 (a)		920,482		899,458
Gallatin Funding, Ltd. Series 2005-1A Class A1L 0.707%, 08/15/17 (144A)(a)		1,000,000		960,439
Harbourmaster CLO Series 5X Class A1 1.686%, 06/15/20 (EUR)(a)		604,437		733,767
Harvest CLO Series IX Class A1 2.228%, 03/29/17 (EUR)(a)		344,129		432,454
Hillmark Funding Series 2006-1A Class A1 0.729%, 05/21/21 (144A)(a)		15,600,000		14,432,933
Katonah, Ltd. Series 6A Class A1A 0.883%, 09/20/16 (144A)(a)		3,990,678		3,911,487
Landmark CDO Series 2005-1A Class A1L 0.827%, 06/01/17 (144A) (a)		5,573,515		5,410,105
Magi Funding plc Series I-A Class A 2.015%, 04/11/21 (144A) (EUR) (a)		2,509,607		2,981,914
Asset-Backed - Other—(Continued)
Nautique Funding, Ltd. Series 2006-1A Class A1A 0.653%, 04/15/20 (144A) (a)(d)		962,297	$	881,401
Navigare Funding CLO, Ltd. Series 2006-1A Class A 0.739%, 05/20/19 (144A) (a)		624,619		603,666
NYLIM Flatiron CLO, Ltd. Series 2006-1A Class A2A 0.658%, 08/08/20 (144A) (a)		600,000		560,910
Pacifica CDO, Ltd. Series 2004-4X Class A1L 0.807%, 02/15/17 (a)		6,672,639		6,501,859
Penta CLO S.A. Series 2007-1X Class A1 1.917%, 06/04/24 (EUR) (a)		4,357,383		5,024,552
Small Business Administration Participation Certificates Series 2007-20K Class I 5.510%, 11/01/27		5,012,040		5,624,514
Symphony CLO, Ltd. Series 2007-3A Class A1A 0.697%, 05/15/19 (144A) (a)		3,500,000		3,278,638
Wind River CLO, Ltd. Series 2004-1A Class A1 0.889%, 12/19/16 (144A) (a)		660,007		634,163
Wood Street CLO B.V. Series II-A Class A1 1.988%, 03/29/21 (144A) (EUR) (a)		770,801		934,213
				75,472,628
Asset-Backed - Student Loan—1.5%
College Loan Corp. Trust Series 2007-2 Class A1 0.668%, 01/25/24 (a)		900,000		883,350
Illinois Student Assistance Commission Series 2010-1 Class A1 0.898%, 04/25/17 (a)		1,163,546		1,156,914

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Asset-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Asset-Backed - Student Loan—(Continued)
Nelnet Student Loan Trust Series 2008-4 Class A2 1.118%, 07/25/18 (a)		1,253,230	$	1,255,295
North Carolina State Education Assistance Authority Series 2011-2 Class A1 0.868%, 10/26/20 (a)		4,475,532		4,445,859
SLM Student Loan Trust Series 2004-5X Class A5 1.835%, 10/25/23 (EUR) (a)		4,100,000		4,790,115
Series 2005-8 Class A2 0.508%, 07/25/22 (a)		762,054		759,703
Series 2007-3 Class A2 0.428%, 10/25/17 (a)		1,066,601		1,059,036
Series 2008-7 Class A2 0.918%, 10/25/17 (a)		860,000		857,672
Series 2008-9 Class A 1.918%, 04/25/23 (a)		24,286,141		24,875,543
Series 2009-C Class A 4.500%, 11/16/43 (144A) (a)		4,738,104		4,496,957
Series 2009-CT Class 1A 2.350%, 04/15/39 (144A) (a)		5,450,884		5,465,001
Series 2010-C Class A1 1.928%, 12/15/17 (144A)(a)		2,550,838		2,559,059
				52,604,504
Total Asset-Backed Securities (Cost $176,425,895)				173,105,737
Loan Participation—0.9%
Consumer Finance—0.4%
Springleaf Finance Corp. 5.500%, 01/17/12 (a)		16,200,000		14,161,473
Diversified Telecommunication Services—0.0%
Intelsat Jackson Holdings S.A. 5.250%, 01/12/12 (a)		497,500		494,923
Health Care Providers & Services—0.2%
Iasis Healthcare LLC 5.000%, 01/31/12 (a)		7,245,250		7,018,872
Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders—0.3%
NRG Energy, Inc. 4.000%, 07/02/18 (a)		7,960,000	$	7,950,090
Total Loan Participation (Cost $31,779,874)				29,625,358
Municipals—0.1%
Buckeye Tobacco Settlement Financing Authority 5.875%, 06/01/47		1,000,000		719,020
Tobacco Settlement Financing Corp.
6.000%, 06/01/23		530,000		533,175
7.467%, 06/01/47		1,120,000		810,365
Total Municipals (Cost $2,542,685)				2,062,560
Convertible Preferred Stocks—0.0%
Commercial Banks—0.0%
Wells Fargo & Co. Series L 7.500%
(Cost $900,000)		900		948,600
Purchased Options—0.0%
Put - OTC -1-Year Interest Rate Swap, expires 11/19/12 (Counterparty—Goldman Sachs & Co.)
(Cost $95,788)		39,500,000		16,993
Short-Term Investments—16.0%
Commercial Paper—1.0%
Banco Do Brasil S.A. 0.000%, 01/17/12 (a)		7,100,000		7,092,523
Itau Unibanco S.A. New York 0.000%, 03/02/12 (a)		28,900,000		28,818,144
				35,910,667

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Short-Term Investments—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Repurchase Agreements—14.8%
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.050% to be repurchased at $230,301,279 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $233,434,000 U.S. Treasury Note at 0.750% due 12/15/13 with a value of $235,748,907.	$	230,300,000	$	230,300,000
Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.030% to be repurchased at $100,000,333 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $72,167,000 U.S. Treasury Bond at 5.000% due 05/15/37 with a value of $102,404,527.		100,000,000		100,000,000
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $2,838,003 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $2,900,000 Federal National Mortgage Association at 0.000% due 06/06/12 with a value of $2,898,550.		2,838,000		2,838,000
JPMorgan Securities, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.060% to be repurchased at $5,000,033 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $4,566,200 U.S. Treasury Note at 3.125% due 05/15/21 with a value of $5,123,937.		5,000,000		5,000,000
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.070% to be repurchased at $5,000,039 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $5,095,000 Federal National Mortgage Association at 0.870% due 09/12/14 with a value of $5,110,132.		5,000,000		5,000,000
Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.060% to be repurchased at $14,200,095 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $13,556,200 U.S. Treasury Note at 2.625% due 06/30/14 with a value of $14,505,226.	$	14,200,000	$	14,200,000
UBS Securities, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.040% to be repurchased at $150,000,667 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $27,000,000 U.S.Treasury Note at 0.500% due 11/15/13 with a value of $27,142,197; $59,000,000 U.S.Treasury Note at 2.750% due 02/15/19 with a value of $65,291,997; and $56,276,000 U.S.Treasury Note at 4.250% due 08/15/13 with a value of $60,820,700.		150,000,000		150,000,000
				507,338,000
U.S. Treasury—0.2%
U.S. Treasury Bills
0.045%, 04/12/12 (b)(f)		640,000		639,918
0.040%, 05/17/12 (b)(f)		930,000		929,858
0.038%, 06/07/12 (b)(f)		4,200,000		4,199,300
				5,769,076
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $549,017,743)				549,017,743
Total Investments—154.8% (Cost $5,318,487,862#)				5,301,718,564
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(54.8)%				(1,877,276,897	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	3,424,441,667

† Par amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

†† All or a portion of the security was pledged as collateral against open future contracts. At the period end, the value of the securities pledged amounted to $2,452,232.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $5,335,419,701. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

investments were $57,389,244 and $(91,090,381), respectively, resulting in net unrealized depreciation of $(33,701,137) for federal income tax purposes.

(a) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2011. Maturity date shown for callable securities reflects the earliest possible call date.

(b) Interest rate represents current yield to maturity.

(c) Security is in default and/or issuer is in bankruptcy.

(d) Security was valued in good faith under procedures approved by the Board of Trustees.

(e) All or a portion of the security was pledged as collateral against open reverse repurchase agreements. At December 31, 2011, the value of the securities pledged amounted to $235,147,625.

(f) All or a portion of the security was pledged as collateral against open swap contracts. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities pledged was $10,278,546.

(144A)— Securities exempt from registration under Rule 144A of the Securities Act of 1933. These securities may be resold in transactions exempt from registration, normally to qualified institutional buyers. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of 144A securities was $758,223,979, which is 22.1% of net assets.

(AUD)— Australian Dollar

(CAD)— Canadian Dollar

(EMTN)— Euro Medium Term Note

(EUR)— Euro

(GBP)— British Pound

(GMTN)— Global Medium Term Note

(JPY)— Japanese Yen

(MTN)— Medium Term Note

Forward Sales Commitments
Securities Sold Short	Counterparty	Interest Rate			Maturity	Proceeds			Value
U.S. Treasury Inflation Indexed Bonds	Barclays Bank plc		2.375	%	1/15/2027	$	(20,831,303	)	$	(21,032,052	)
Fannie Mae Pool	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		5.500	%	TBA		(5,407,031	)		(5,445,314	)
Total						$	(26,238,334	)	$	(26,477,366	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Total U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies*	$	—	$	3,104,514,879	$	—	$	3,104,514,879
Total Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities*		—		878,560,980		—		878,560,980
Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities
Capital Markets		—		94,859,997		—		94,859,997
Chemicals		—		2,046,464		—		2,046,464
Commercial Banks		—		10,983,928		—		10,983,928
Computers & Peripherals		—		5,228,285		—		5,228,285
Consumer Finance		—		40,658,808		—		40,658,808
Diversified Financial Services		—		62,731,607		1,538,927		64,270,534
Household Durables		—		9,942,186		—		9,942,186
Insurance		—		11,411,673		—		11,411,673
Media		—		11,774,500		—		11,774,500
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels		—		34,719,810		—		34,719,810
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance		—		1,403,091		—		1,403,091
Total Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities		—		285,760,349		1,538,927		287,299,276
Total Mortgage-Backed Securities*		—		276,566,438		—		276,566,438
Asset-Backed Securities
Asset-Backed - Automobile		—		874,968		1,277,637		2,152,605
Asset-Backed - Credit Card		—		24,156,507		—		24,156,507
Asset-Backed - Home Equity		—		18,719,493		—		18,719,493
Asset-Backed - Other		—		74,591,227		881,401		75,472,628
Asset-Backed - Student Loan		—		52,604,504		—		52,604,504
Total Asset-Backed Securities		—		170,946,699		2,159,038		173,105,737
Total Loan Participation*		—		29,625,358		—		29,625,358
Municipals		—		2,062,560		—		2,062,560
Total Convertible Preferred Stocks*		948,600		—		—		948,600
Purchased Options		—		16,993		—		16,993
Total Short-Term Investments*		—		549,017,743		—		549,017,743
Total Investments	$	948,600	$	5,297,071,999	$	3,697,965	$	5,301,718,564

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY—(Continued)

Description	Level 1		Level 2			Level 3		Total
Forward Contracts**
Forward Foreign Currency Contracts (Unrealized Appreciation)	$	—	$	16,216,992		$	—	$	16,216,992
Forward Foreign Currency Contracts (Unrealized Depreciation)		—		(12,132,395	)		—		(12,132,395	)
Total Forward Contracts	$	—	$	4,084,597		$	—	$	4,084,597
Futures Contracts**
Futures Contracts Long (Unrealized Appreciation)	$	5,029,060	$	—		$	—	$	5,029,060
Total Futures Contracts	$	5,029,060	$	—		$	—	$	5,029,060
Forward Sales Commitments	$	—	$	(26,477,366	)	$	—	$	(26,477,366	)
Written Options**
Inflation Floor Options	$	—	$	(290,318	)	$	—	$	(290,318	)
Interest Rate Options		—		(855,659	)		—		(855,659	)
Total Written Options	$	—	$	(1,145,977	)	$	—	$	(1,145,977	)
Swap Contracts**
Swap contracts at value (Assets)	$	—	$	6,892,371		$	—	$	6,892,371
Swap contracts at value (Liabilities)		—		(8,902,810	)		—		(8,902,810	)
Total Swap Contracts	$	—	$	(2,010,439	)	$	—	$	(2,010,439	)

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

** Derivative instruments such as forwards and futures contracts are valued on the unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the instrument. Written options and swap contracts are presented at value.

Following is a reconciliation of Level 3 assets for which significant unobservable inputs were used to determine fair value:

Investments in Securities	Balance as of December 31, 2010		Realized Gain		Change in Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation)			Purchases		Sales			Transfers out of Level 3			Balance as of December 31, 2011		Change in Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation) from Investments Held at December 31, 2011
U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed	$	13,393,721	$	—	$	—		$	—	$	(13,393,721	)	$	—		$	—	$	—
Federal Agencies		7,277,290		—		—			—		—			(7,277,290	)		—		—
Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities
Commercial Banks		877,231		—		—			—		(877,231	)		—			—		—
Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities
Diversified Financial Services		1,564,016		823		(25,191	)		—		(721	)		—			1,538,927		(25,191	)
Mortgage-Backed Securities
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities		5,789,457		50,875		(25,216	)		—		(3,700,000	)		(2,115,116	)		—		—
Asset-Backed Securities
Asset-Backed - Automobile		—		30,165		(49,508	)		2,067,233		(770,253	)		—			1,277,637		(49,508	)
Asset-Backed - Other		21,949,465		26,874		47,581			—		(1,653,812	)		(19,488,707	)		881,401		16,953
Total	$	50,851,180	$	108,737	$	(52,334	)	$	2,067,233	$	(20,395,738	)	$	(28,881,113	)	$	3,697,965	$	(57,746	)

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies in the amount of $20,673,102, Mortgage-Backed Securities in the amount of $2,115,116 and Asset Backed Securities in the amount of $19,488,707 were transferred out of Level 3 due to the trading and availability of a vendor or broker providing prices.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)	$	4,794,380,564
Repurchase Agreements		507,338,000
Cash		126
Cash denominated in foreign currencies (b)		1,790,844
Cash collateral for futures		104,000
Receivable for investments sold		31,401,742
Receivable for shares sold		1,230,920
Net variation margin futures contracts		434,703
Interest receivable		26,726,653
Swap interest receivable		130,832
Swaps at market value (c)		6,892,371
Unrealized appreciation on forward currency exchange contracts		16,216,992
Miscellaneous Assets		301,189
Total assets		5,386,948,936
Liabilities
Payables for:
Reverse repurchase agreements		230,246,063
Shares redeemed		1,214,999
Investments purchased		1,664,322,809
Cash collateral for swaps		15,880,000
Forward sales commitments, at value (d)		26,477,366
Unrealized depreciation on forward currency exchange contracts		12,132,395
Swaps at market value (e)		8,902,810
Outstanding written options (f)		1,145,977
Interest payable forward sales commitments		10,615
Swap interest		110,487
Interest on reverse repurchase agreements		99,645
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		1,352,966
Distribution and service fees - Class B		377,241
Distribution and service fees - Class E		7,795
Administration fees		14,256
Custodian and accounting fees		46,723
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		140,055
Total liabilities		1,962,507,269
Net Assets	$	3,424,441,667
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	3,132,659,079
Accumulated net realized gain		196,028,869
Unrealized depreciation on investments, futures contracts, written options contracts, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		(13,745,507	)
Undistributed net investment income		109,499,226
Net Assets	$	3,424,441,667
Net Assets
Class A	$	1,576,257,010
Class B		1,786,315,454
Class E		61,869,203
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		132,397,591
Class B		150,899,595
Class E		5,219,474
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	11.91
Class B		11.84
Class E		11.85

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreements, was $4,811,149,862.

(b) Identified cost of cash denominated in foreign currencies was $1,810,593.

(c) Net premium paid on swaps was $9,302,489.

(d) Includes $26,238,334 relating to forward sales commitments.

(e) Net premium received on swaps was $(5,266,852).

(f) Premiums received on written options were $2,180,324.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends	$	67,500
Interest (a)		83,051,120
Total investment income		83,118,620
Expenses
Management fees		15,077,481
Administration fees		157,405
Custodian and accounting fees		547,798
Distribution and service fees - Class B		4,157,926
Distribution and service fees - Class E		83,705
Audit and tax services		99,244
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Interest expense		202,216
Shareholder reporting		175,222
Insurance		14,352
Miscellaneous		28,928
Total expenses		20,612,987
Net investment income		62,505,633
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments, Futures Contracts, Written Options Contracts, Swap Contracts and Foreign Currency Transactions
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments		263,898,635
Futures contracts		5,169,515
Written options contracts		1,635,562
Swap contracts		(2,194,411	)
Foreign currency transactions		12,028,043
Net realized gain on investments, futures contracts, written options contracts, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		280,537,344
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on:
Investments		(2,880,707	)
Futures contracts		5,013,272
Written options contracts		4,554,378
Swap contracts		(11,132,463	)
Foreign currency transactions		3,688,245
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments, futures contracts, written options contracts, forward sales commitments, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		(757,275	)
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments, futures contracts, written options contracts, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		279,780,069
Net Increase in Net Assets from Operations	$	342,285,702

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $2,217.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	62,505,633		$	30,916,090
Net realized gain on investments, futures contracts, written options contracts, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		280,537,344			171,981,436
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments, futures contracts, written options contracts, forward sales commitments, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		(757,275	)		(24,023,226	)
Net increase in net assets resulting from operations		342,285,702			178,874,300
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(24,956,696	)		(31,738,835	)
Class B		(26,951,824	)		(26,604,062	)
Class E		(908,972	)		(1,258,253	)
From net realized capital gains
Class A		(64,106,474	)		(33,191,843	)
Class B		(76,807,887	)		(29,719,980	)
Class E		(2,535,191	)		(1,383,067	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(196,267,044	)		(123,896,040	)
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		560,559,229			482,747,548
Net Increase in Net Assets		706,577,887			537,725,808
Net assets at beginning of period		2,717,863,780			2,180,137,972
Net assets at end of period	$	3,424,441,667		$	2,717,863,780
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	109,499,226		$	54,010,500

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		46,050,628		$	521,634,023			21,989,311		$	248,415,204
Reinvestments		8,045,454			89,063,170			5,956,943			64,930,678
Redemptions		(33,069,605	)		(378,653,706	)		(20,445,750	)		(227,961,144	)
Net increase		21,026,477		$	232,043,487			7,500,504		$	85,384,738
Class B
Sales		39,534,661		$	452,966,504			42,388,465		$	479,649,156
Reinvestments		9,407,045			103,759,711			5,186,376			56,324,042
Redemptions		(20,333,577	)		(234,861,349	)		(12,571,794	)		(141,714,866	)
Net increase		28,608,129		$	321,864,866			35,003,047		$	394,258,332
Class E
Sales		1,312,773		$	15,176,507			1,048,545		$	11,873,924
Reinvestments		312,254			3,444,163			243,216			2,641,320
Redemptions		(1,042,796	)		(11,969,794	)		(1,010,335	)		(11,410,766	)
Net increase		582,231		$	6,650,876			281,426		$	3,104,478
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	560,559,229					$	482,747,548

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	11.43		$	11.17		$	9.84		$	10.98		$	10.08
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.24			0.16			0.29			0.40			0.49
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		1.02			0.71			1.46			(1.09	)		0.65
Total from investment operations		1.26			0.87			1.75			(0.69	)		1.14
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.22	)		(0.30	)		(0.42	)		(0.43	)		(0.24	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.56	)		(0.31	)		0.00			(0.02	)		0.00
Total distributions		(0.78	)		(0.61	)		(0.42	)		(0.45	)		(0.24	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	11.91		$	11.43		$	11.17		$	9.84		$	10.98
Total Return (%)		11.48			8.00			18.37			(6.88	)		11.08
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.51			0.51			0.53			0.53			0.55
Ratio of expenses to average net assets excluding interest expense (%)		0.50			0.51			0.53			0.53			0.55
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.07			1.38			2.78			3.74			4.78
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		458.1			526.8			667.7			1,143.3			945.3
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	1,576.3		$	1,273.4		$	1,160.3		$	824.7		$	857.5
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	11.38		$	11.13		$	9.80		$	10.96		$	10.06
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.21			0.13			0.27			0.37			0.46
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		1.01			0.71			1.45			(1.10	)		0.66
Total from investment operations		1.22			0.84			1.72			(0.73	)		1.12
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.20	)		(0.28	)		(0.39	)		(0.41	)		(0.22	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.56	)		(0.31	)		0.00			(0.02	)		0.00
Total distributions		(0.76	)		(0.59	)		(0.39	)		(0.43	)		(0.22	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	11.84		$	11.38		$	11.13		$	9.80		$	10.96
Total Return (%)		11.14			7.76			18.05			(7.06	)		10.80
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.76			0.76			0.78			0.78			0.80
Ratio of expenses to average net assets excluding interest expense (%)		0.75			0.76			0.78			0.78			0.80
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.83			1.13			2.55			3.44			4.52
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		458.1			526.8			667.7			1,143.3			945.3
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	1,786.3		$	1,391.6		$	971.4		$	542.9		$	401.6

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	11.39		$	11.13		$	9.80		$	10.96		$	10.06
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.22			0.14			0.28			0.37			0.48
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		1.00			0.71			1.45			(1.09	)		0.65
Total from investment operations		1.22			0.85			1.73			(0.72	)		1.13
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.20	)		(0.28	)		(0.40	)		(0.42	)		(0.23	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.56	)		(0.31	)		0.00			(0.02	)		0.00
Total distributions		(0.76	)		(0.59	)		(0.40	)		(0.44	)		(0.23	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	11.85		$	11.39		$	11.13		$	9.80		$	10.96
Total Return (%)		11.18			7.90			18.15			(6.92	)		10.93
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.66			0.66			0.68			0.68			0.71
Ratio of expenses to average net assets excluding interest expense (%)		0.65			0.66			0.68			0.68			0.71
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.91			1.24			2.63			3.47			4.63
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		458.1			526.8			667.7			1,143.3			945.3
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	61.9		$	52.8		$	48.5		$	38.8		$	7.3

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Companies (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A, B and E Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

25

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Swap contracts are marked-to-market daily based on quotations and prices supplied by market makers, broker-dealers and pricing services. Such quotations and prices are derived utilizing significant observable data, including the underlying investments. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to futures, options, swap, and forward transactions, foreign currency transactions, deferred trustees’ compensation, paydown, premium amortization, deferred deflation adjustments and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Foreign Currency Translation - The books and records of the Portfolio are maintained in U.S. dollars. The values of securities, currencies and other assets and liabilities denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars are translated into U.S. dollars based upon foreign exchange rates

26

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

prevailing at the end of the period. Purchases and sales of investment securities, income and expenses are translated on the respective dates of such transactions. Since the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, it is not practical to isolate that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates from that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities. Such fluctuations are included in the net realized and unrealized gain or loss on investments.

Net realized foreign exchange gains or losses arise from activity in forward foreign currency exchange contracts, sales of foreign currency, currency gains or losses realized between the trade and settlement dates on securities transactions, and the difference between the amounts of dividends, interest, and foreign withholding taxes recorded by the Portfolio and the U.S. dollar equivalent of the amounts actually received or paid by the Portfolio. Gains and losses attributable to foreign currency exchange rates on sales of securities are recorded as Net realized gains and losses on investments. Net unrealized foreign exchange gains and losses arise from changes in the value of assets and liabilities, other than investment securities, resulting from changes in foreign exchange rates.

Short Sales - The Portfolio may enter into a “short sale” of securities in circumstances in which, at the time the short position is open, the Portfolio owns an equal amount of the securities sold short or owns preferred stocks or debt securities, convertible or exchangeable without payment of further consideration, into an equal number of securities sold short. This kind of short sale, which is referred to as one “against the box,” may be entered into by the Portfolio to, for example, lock in a sale price for a security the Portfolio does not wish to sell immediately.

The Portfolio may also make short sales of a security it does not own, in anticipation of a decline in the market value of that security. To complete such a transaction, the Portfolio must borrow the security to make delivery to the buyer. The Portfolio then is obligated to replace the security borrowed by purchasing it at market price at the time of replacement. The price at such time may be more or less than the price at which the security was sold by the Portfolio. Until the security is replaced, the Portfolio is required to pay to the lender any dividends or interest which accrue during the period of the loan. To borrow the security, the Portfolio also may be required to pay a premium, which would increase the cost of the security sold. The proceeds of the short sale will be retained by the broker, to the extent necessary to meet margin requirements, until the short position is closed out. Until the Portfolio replaces a borrowed security, the Portfolio will segregate with its custodian, or earmark, cash or other liquid assets at such a level that (i) the amount segregated, or earmarked, plus the amount deposited with the broker as collateral will equal the current value of the security sold short and (ii) the amount segregated plus the amount deposited with the broker as collateral will not be less than the market value of the security at the time it was sold short. The Portfolio will incur a loss as a result of the short sale if the price of the security increases between the date of the short sale and the date on which the Portfolio replaces the borrowed security. The Portfolio will realize a gain if the security declines in price between those dates. This result is the opposite of what one would expect from a cash purchase of a long position in a security. The amount of any gain will be decreased, and the amount of any loss increased, by the amount of any premium, dividends or interest the Portfolio may be required to pay in connection with a short sale. No more than one third of the Portfolio’s net assets will be, when added together: (i) deposited as collateral for the obligation to replace securities borrowed to effect short sales; and (ii) segregated in connection with short sales.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

Reverse Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into reverse repurchase agreements with qualified institutions to seek to enhance returns. Reverse repurchase agreements involve sales by the Portfolio of securities concurrently with an agreement by the Portfolio to repurchase the same assets at a later date at a fixed price. During the reverse repurchase agreement period, the Portfolio continues to receive principal and interest payments on these securities. The Portfolio will establish a segregated account with its custodian in which it will maintain liquid assets equal in value to its obligations in respect of reverse repurchase agreements. Reverse repurchase agreements involve the risk that the market value of the securities retained by the Portfolio may decline below the price of the securities the Portfolio has sold but is obligated to repurchase under the agreement. In the event the buyer of securities under a reverse repurchase agreement files for bankruptcy or becomes insolvent, the Portfolio’s use of the proceeds of the agreement may be restricted pending a determination by the other party, or its trustee or receiver, whether to enforce the Portfolio’s obligation to repurchase the securities. For the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had an outstanding reverse repurchase agreement balance for 194 days. The average amount of borrowings was $178,372,492 and the weighted average interest rate was 0.21%.

27

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Forward Commitments and When-Issued and Delayed-Delivery Securities - The Portfolio may purchase securities on a when-issued or delayed delivery basis and may purchase or sell securities on a forward commitment basis. Settlement of such transactions normally occurs within a month or more after the purchase or sale commitment is made. The Portfolio may purchase securities under such conditions only with the intention of actually acquiring them, but may enter into a separate agreement to sell the securities before the settlement date. Since the value of securities purchased may fluctuate prior to settlement, the Portfolio may be required to pay more at settlement than the security is worth. In addition, the purchaser is not entitled to any of the interest earned prior to settlement. Upon making a commitment to purchase a security on a when-issued, delayed delivery or forward commitment basis, the Portfolio will hold liquid assets in a segregated account at the Portfolio’s custodian bank worth at least the equivalent of the amount due. The liquid assets will be monitored on a daily basis and adjusted as necessary to maintain the necessary value.

TBA Purchase & Sale Commitments - The Portfolio may enter into TBA commitments to purchase or sell securities for a fixed price at a future date. TBA commitments are considered securities in themselves, and involve a risk of loss if the value of the security to be purchased or sold declines or increases prior to settlement date, which is in addition to the risk of decline in the value of the Portfolio’s other assets. Unsettled TBA commitments are valued at the current market value of the underlying securities, according to the procedures described under “Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements”.

Loan Participations - The Portfolio may invest in loans arranged through private negotiation between one or more financial institutions. The Portfolio’s investment in any such loan may be in the form of a participation in or an assignment of the loan. In connection with purchasing participations or an assignment, the Portfolio generally will have no right to enforce compliance by the borrower with the terms of the loan agreement relating to the loan, nor any rights of set-off against the borrower and the Portfolio may not benefit directly from any collateral supporting the loan in which it has purchased the participation or assignment.

Mortgage Related and Other Asset Backed Securities - The Portfolio may invest in mortgage related or other asset-backed securities. These securities may include mortgage pass-through securities, collateralized mortgaged obligations (“CMOs”), commercial mortgage-backed securities, mortgage dollar rolls, CMO residuals, stripped mortgage backed securities (“SMBS”) and other securities that directly or indirectly represent a participation in, or are secured by or payable from, mortgage loans on real property or other receivables. The value of some mortgage or asset-backed securities may be particularly sensitive to changes in prevailing interest rates. Early repayment of principal on some mortgage-related securities may expose the Portfolio to a lower rate of return upon reinvestment of principal. The value of these securities may fluctuate in response to the market’s perception of the creditworthiness of the issuers. Additionally, although mortgages and mortgage-related securities are generally supported by some form of government or private guarantee and/or insurance, there is no assurance that private guarantors or insurers will meet their obligations.

In one type of SMBS, one class receives all of the interest from the mortgage assets (the interest-only or “IO” class), while the other class will receive all of the principal (the principal-only or “PO” class). Payments received for the IOs are included in interest income on the Statement of Operations of the Portfolio. Because principal will not be received at the maturity of an IO, adjustments are made to the book value of the security until maturity. These adjustments are included in interest income on the Statement of Operations of the Portfolio. Payments received for POs are treated as reductions to the cost and par value of the securities. Details of mortgage related and other asset-backed securities held by the Portfolio are included in the Portfolio’s Schedule of Investments.

The Portfolio may invest a significant portion of its assets in securities of issuers that hold mortgage and asset-backed securities and direct investments in securities backed by commercial and residential mortgage loans and other financial assets. The value and related income of these securities are sensitive to changes in economic conditions, including delinquencies and/or defaults, and may be negatively impacted by increased volatility of market prices and periods of illiquidity.

High Yield Debt Securities - The Portfolio may invest in high yield debt securities, or “junk bonds,” which are securities that are rated below “investment grade” or, if not rated, are of equivalent quality. A portfolio with high yield debt securities generally will be exposed to greater market risk and credit risk than a portfolio that invests only in investment grade debt securities because issuers of high yield debt securities are less secure financially, are more likely to default on their obligations, and their securities are more sensitive to interest rate changes and downturns in the economy. In addition, the secondary market for lower-rated debt securities may not be as liquid as that for more highly rated debt securities. As a result, the Portfolio’s Subadviser may find it more difficult to value lower-rated debt securities or sell them and may have to sell them at prices significantly lower than the values assigned to them by the Portfolio.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with Pacific Investment Management Company LLC (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

28

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$15,077,481		0.50	%	First $1.2 Billion
		0.45	%	Over $1.2 Billion

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Distribution Agreements and Plans - The Trust has distribution agreements with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A, Class B and Class E Shares.

MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B and Class E distribution plans provide that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% and 0.25%, respectively, of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B and Class E Shares. However, under the Class B and Class E distribution agreements, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B and Class E distribution plans are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% and 0.15% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares, respectively. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B and Class E distribution plans and distribution agreements, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B and Class E Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$20,256,051,820	$	1,501,619,471	$	20,011,862,606	$	1,034,902,949

The Portfolio engaged in security transactions with other accounts managed by Pacific Investment Management Company LLC that amounted to $21,742,732 in purchases of investments which is included above.

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - The Portfolio may enter into forward foreign currency exchange contracts to hedge its portfolio holdings against the risk of future movements in certain foreign currency exchange rates. When entering into these contracts, the Portfolio agrees to receive or deliver a fixed quantity of foreign currency for an agreed-upon price on an agreed upon future date. These contracts

29

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments - continued

are valued daily and the Portfolio’s net equity therein, representing unrealized gain or loss on the contracts as measured by the difference between the forward foreign exchange rates at the dates of entry into the contracts and the forward foreign exchange rates at the value date, is included in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. When a contract is closed, the Portfolio recognizes a realized gain or loss equal to the difference between the value of the contract at the time it was opened and the value at the time it was closed.

Realized and unrealized gains and losses on forward foreign currency exchange contracts are included in the Statement of Operations. These contracts involve market and/or credit risk in excess of the amount recognized in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

The use of forward foreign currency exchange contracts does not eliminate fluctuations in the underlying prices of the securities of the Portfolio, but it does establish a rate of exchange that can be achieved in the future. Although forward foreign currency exchange contracts may limit the risk of loss due to a decline in the value of the currency holdings, they also limit any potential gain that might result should the value of the currency increase. In addition, the Portfolio could be exposed to risks if the counterparties to the contracts are unable to meet the terms of the contracts. The Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit risk, as opposed to investment and other types of risk, in respect of foreign currency forward contracts is typically the value of the currency the Portfolio is due from its counterparty at settlement plus the value of the currency paid, if any, to the Portfolio’s counterparty.

Futures Contracts - The Portfolio may buy and sell futures contracts (on recognized exchanges) as a hedge, to maintain investment exposure to a target asset class or to enhance return. The Portfolio may be subject to fluctuations in equity prices, interest rates, commodity prices and foreign currency exchange rates in the normal course of pursuing its investment objective. Futures contracts are standardized agreements to buy or sell a security, or deliver a final cash settlement price in connection with an index, interest rate, currency, or other asset. The Portfolio must deposit an amount (“initial margin”) equal to a certain percentage of the face value of the futures contract. The initial margin may be in the form of cash or securities which is returned when the Portfolio’s obligations under the contract have been satisfied. If cash is deposited as the initial margin, it is shown as “restricted cash” on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Futures contracts are marked-to-market daily and subsequent payments (“variation margin”) are made or received by the Portfolio depending on the daily fluctuations in the value of the futures contracts. These amounts are reflected as receivables or payables on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Risks of entering into futures contracts (and related options) include the possibility that the market for these instruments may be illiquid and that a change in the value of the contract or option may not correlate perfectly with changes in the value of the underlying instrument. Futures contracts are exchange traded and the exchange’s clearinghouse, as counterparty to all exchange traded futures, guarantees the futures contracts against default.

Options Contracts - An option contract purchased by the Portfolio gives the Portfolio the right, but not the obligation, to buy (call) or sell (put) an underlying instrument at a fixed exercise price during a specified period. Call options written by the Portfolio gives the holder the right to buy the underlying instrument from the Portfolio at a fixed exercise price; put options written by the Portfolio give the holder the right to sell the underlying instrument to the Portfolio at a fixed exercise price.

The Portfolio may use options to hedge against changes in values of securities the Portfolio owns or expects to purchase, to maintain exposure to the broad equity markets or to enhance return. Writing puts or buying calls tend to increase the Portfolio’s exposure to the underlying instrument and writing calls or buying puts tend to decrease the Portfolio’s exposure to the underlying instrument, and can be used to hedge other Portfolio investments. For options purchased to hedge the Portfolio’s investments, the potential risk to the Portfolio is that the change in value of options contracts may not correspond perfectly to the change in value of the hedged instruments. In addition, losses may arise from changes in the value of the underlying instrument, if there is an illiquid secondary market for the option contract, or if the counterparty to the option contract is unable to perform. The Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit risk, as opposed to investment and other types of risk, in respect of purchased options is typically the premium initially paid for the option plus the market value of the option.

The purpose of inflation-capped options is to protect the buyer from inflation, above a specified rate, eroding the value of investments in inflation-linked products with a given notional exposure. Inflation-capped options are used to give downside protection to investments in inflation-linked products by establishing a floor on the value of such products.

The main risk associated with purchasing an option is that the option expires without being exercised. In this case, the option expires worthless and the premium paid for the option is considered a loss. The risk associated with writing a call option is that the Portfolio may forgo the opportunity for a profit if the market value of the underlying instrument increases and the option is exercised, requiring the Portfolio to sell the underlying instrument at a price below its market value. When the Portfolio writes a call option on a security it does not own, its exposure on such an option is theoretically unlimited. The risk in writing a put option is that the Portfolio may incur a loss if the market value of the underlying instrument decreases and the option is exercised, requiring the Portfolio to purchase the underlying instrument at a price above its market value. In addition, the Portfolio risks not being able to enter into a closing transaction for the written option as the result of an illiquid market for the option.

Purchases of put and call options are recorded as investments, the value of which are marked-to-market daily. When a purchased option expires without being exercised, the Portfolio will realize a loss equal to the premium paid. When the Portfolio enters into a closing sale transaction, the Portfolio will realize a gain or loss depending on whether the sales proceeds from the closing sale transaction are greater or less than the

30

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments - continued

premium initially paid for the option. When the Portfolio exercises a put option, it will realize a gain or loss from the sale of the underlying instrument and the proceeds from such sale will be decreased by the premium originally paid for the put option. When the Portfolio exercises a call option, the cost of the security which the Portfolio purchases upon exercise will be increased by the premium originally paid for the call option.

The premium received for a written option is recorded as an asset and an equivalent liability. The liability is marked-to-market daily based on the option’s quoted market price. When a written option expires without being exercised or the Portfolio enters into a closing purchase transaction, the Portfolio realizes a gain (or loss if the cost of the closing purchase transaction exceeds the premium received when the option was sold) without regard to any unrealized gain or loss on the underlying instrument and the liability related to such option is eliminated. When a written call option is exercised, the Portfolio realizes a gain or loss, as adjusted for the premium received, from the sale of the underlying instrument. When a written put option is exercised, the premium received is offset against the amount paid for the purchase of the underlying instrument.

Swap Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into swap contracts. Swap contracts are derivatives agreements to exchange the return generated by one instrument for the return generated by another instrument. The payment streams are calculated by reference to a specified index and agreed upon notional amount. The term “specified index” includes, but is not limited to, currencies, fixed interest rates, prices and total return on interest rate indices, fixed income indices, stock indices and commodity indices (as well as amounts derived from arithmetic operations on these indices). A Portfolio will usually enter into swaps on a net basis, i.e., the two payment streams are netted out in a cash settlement on the payment date or dates specified in the instrument, with the Portfolio receiving or paying, as the case may be, only the net amount of the two payments. The Portfolio’s obligations under a swap agreement will be accrued daily (offset against any amounts owing to the Portfolio) and any accrued but unpaid net amounts owed to a swap counterparty will be covered by designating the segregation, either on its records or with the Trust’s custodian, of cash or other liquid assets, to avoid any potential leveraging of the Portfolio. The Portfolio may enter into swap transactions with counterparties that are approved by the investment adviser in accordance with guidelines established by the Board. These guidelines provide for a minimum credit rating for each counterparty and various credit enhancement techniques (for example, collateralization of amounts due from counterparties) to limit exposure to counterparties that have lower credit ratings.

An index swap is an agreement to swap cash flows on a notional amount based on changes in the values of the reference indices.

Currency Swaps: A currency swap is an agreement to exchange cash flows on a notional amount of two or more currencies based on the relative value differential among them. Such swaps may involve initial and final exchanges that correspond to the agreed upon notional amount. Currency swaps usually involve the delivery of the entire principal value of one designated currency in exchange for the other designated currency. Therefore, the entire principal value of a currency swap is subject to the risk that the other party to the swap will default on its contractual delivery obligations. If there is a default by the counterparty, the Portfolio may have contractual remedies pursuant to the agreements related to the transaction.

Interest Rate Swaps: The Portfolio may enter into interest rate swaps and the purchase or sale of related caps and floors. The Portfolio may enter into these transactions primarily to manage its exposure to interest rates, to protect against currency fluctuations, or to preserve a return or spread on a particular investment. The Portfolio is subject to interest rate risk exposure in the normal course of pursuing its investment objectives. Because the Portfolio holds has exposure to fixed income securities, the value of these securities may decrease if interest rates rise. To help hedge against this risk and to maintain its ability to generate income at prevailing market rates, the Portfolio may enter into interest rate swap contracts. Interest rate swaps are arrangements between two parties to exchange cash flows based on a notional principal amount, to manage the Portfolio’s exposure to interest rate risk. Interest rate swap contracts are marked-to-market daily based upon quotations from market makers and the change, if any, is recorded as unrealized gain or loss. Payments received or made are recorded as realized gains or losses. The Portfolio could be exposed to credit or market risk due to unfavorable changes in the fluctuation of interest rates or if the counterparty defaults on its obligation to perform. Risks may exceed amounts recognized on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The purchase of a cap entitles the purchaser, to the extent that a specific index exceeds a predetermined interest rate, to receive payments of interest on a notional principal amount from the party selling such cap. The purchase of a floor entitles the purchaser to receive payments on a notional principal amount from the party selling such floor to the extent that a specified index falls below a predetermined interest rate or amount. The Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit risk, as opposed to investment and other types of risk, in respect of interest rate swaps is typically the discounted net value of the cash flows to be received from the counterparty over the contract’s remaining life, to the extent that amount is positive, plus the cost of entering into a similar transaction with another counterparty, if possible.

Credit Default Swaps: The Portfolio is subject to credit risk in the normal course of pursuing its investment objectives. The Portfolio may enter into credit default swaps to manage its exposure to the market or certain sectors of the market, to reduce its risk exposure to defaults of corporate and sovereign issuers, or to create exposure to corporate or sovereign issuers to which it is not otherwise exposed. As the seller in a credit default swap contract, the Portfolio would be required to pay the par (or other agreed upon) value of a referenced debt obligation or index to the counterparty in the event of a default by a third party, such as a U.S. or foreign corporate issuer, on the debt obligation. In return, the Portfolio would receive from the counterparty an upfront or periodic stream of payments over the term of the contract provided that no event of default has occurred. If no default occurs, the Portfolio would keep the stream of payments and would have no payment obligations. An upfront payment received by the Portfolio is recorded as a liability on the books. An upfront payment made by the Portfolio is recorded as an asset on the books. As the seller, the Portfolio would be subject to investment exposure on the notional amount of the swap. The Portfolio may also purchase

31

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments - continued

credit default swap contracts in order to hedge against the risk of default of debt securities held in its portfolio. This would involve the risk that the investment may expire worthless and would only generate income in the event of an actual default by the issuer of the underlying obligation (as opposed to a credit downgrade or other indication of financial instability). It would also involve credit risk—the seller may fail to satisfy its payment obligations to the Portfolio in the event of a default. The Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit risk, as opposed to investment and other types of risk, in respect of credit default swaps, either as the protection seller or as the protection buyer, is the unrealized appreciation of the contract plus, when the Portfolio is the protection buyer, any premiums paid. This risk is mitigated by collateral posted by the counterparty.

Implied credit spreads, represented in absolute terms, utilized in determining the market value of credit default swap agreements on corporate issues or sovereign issues of an emerging country as of period end are disclosed in Note 10 to the Notes to Financial Statements and serve as an indicator of the status of the payment/performance risk and represent the likelihood or risk of default for the credit derivative. The implied credit spread of a particular referenced entity or index also reflects the cost of buying/selling protection and may include up-front payments required to be made to enter into the agreement. For credit default swap agreements on asset-backed securities and credit indices, the quoted market prices and resulting values serve as the indicator of the current status of the payment/performance risk. Wider credit spreads represent a deterioration of the referenced entity’s credit soundness and a greater likelihood or risk of default or other credit event occurring as defined under the terms of the agreement.

The maximum potential amount of future payments (undiscounted) that a Portfolio as a seller of protection could be required to make under a credit default swap agreement would be an amount equal to the notional amount of the agreement. Notional amounts of all credit default swap agreements outstanding as of December 31, 2011 for which a Portfolio is the seller of protection are disclosed in Note 10 to the Notes to Financials Statements. These potential amounts would be partially offset by any recovery values of the respective referenced obligations, up-front payments received upon entering into the agreement, or net amounts received from the settlement of buy protection credit default swap agreements entered into by a Portfolio for the same referenced entity or entities.

Swap agreements are marked to market daily. The change in value, if any, is recorded as unrealized gain or loss in the Statement of Operations. A liquidation payment received or made at the termination of the swap is recorded as realized gain or loss in the Statement of Operations. Net periodic payments are included as part of realized gain (loss) on the Statement of Operations.

The swaps in which the Portfolio may engage may include instruments under which one party pays a single or periodic fixed amount(s) (or premium), and the other party pays periodic amounts based on the movement of a specified index. Swaps do not involve the delivery of securities, other underlying assets, or principal. The Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit risk, as opposed to investment and other types of risk, in respect of swaps is typically the discounted net value of the cash flows to be received from the counterparty over the contract’s remaining life to the extent that such amount is positive, plus the cost of entering into a similar transaction with another counterparty, if possible.

The use of swaps is a highly specialized activity that involves investment techniques and risks different from those associated with ordinary portfolio securities transactions. If the Adviser or Subadviser is incorrect in its forecasts of market values, interest rates, and currency exchange rates, the investment performance of the Portfolio would be less favorable than it would have been if this investment technique were not used.

At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had the following derivatives, categorized by risk exposure:

	Asset Derivatives			Liability Derivatives
Risk Exposure	Statement of Assets and Liabilities Location	Fair Value		Statement of Assets and Liabilities Location	Fair Value
Interest Rate	Swaps at market value	$	1,655,348	Swaps at market value	$	5,695,283
	Unrealized appreciation on futures contracts*		5,029,060	Unrealized depreciation on futures contracts*		—
	Investments at value(a)		16,993	Investments at value(a)		—
	Outstanding written options		—	Outstanding written options		1,145,977
Credit	Swaps at market value		5,237,023	Swaps at market value		3,207,527
Currency	Unrealized appreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts		16,216,992	Unrealized depreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts		12,132,395
Total		$	28,155,416		$	22,181,182

* Includes cumulative appreciation/depreciation of futures contracts as reported in the notes to financial statements. Only the current day’s variation margin is reported within the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

(a) Options purchased are part of Investments as shown in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities and net realized gain (loss) on investments and change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments as shown in the Statement of Operations.

32

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments - continued

Transactions in derivative instruments during the year ended December 31, 2011, were as follows:

Statement of Operations Location - Net Realized Gain (Loss)	Interest Rate			Currency			Credit			Total
Investments(a)	$	772,688		$	—		$	—		$	772,688
Foreign currency transactions		—			(14,203,887	)		—			(14,203,887	)
Future contracts		5,115,490			—			—			5,115,490
Swap contracts		(1,699,080	)		—			(495,331	)		(2,194,411	)
Written options contracts		1,132,138			—			503,424			1,635,562
	$	5,321,236		$	(14,203,887	)	$	8,093		$	(8,874,558	)
Statement of Operations Location - Net Change in Unrealized Gain (Loss)
Investments(a)	$	(239,741	)	$	—		$	—		$	(239,741	)
Foreign currency transactions		—			3,805,069			—			3,805,069
Future contracts		5,013,272			—			—			5,013,272
Swap contracts		(7,394,127	)		—			(3,738,336	)		(11,132,463	)
Written options contracts		4,662,145			—			(107,767	)		4,554,378
	$	2,041,549		$	3,805,069		$	(3,846,103	)	$	2,000,515

For the year ended December 31, 2011, the average amount or number per contract outstanding for each derivative type was as follows:

Derivative Description	Average Notional or Face Amount(b)
Investments(a)	$	76,533,333
Foreign currency transactions		741,407,142
Futures contracts long		681,054,970
Futures contracts short		1,631,547
Swap contracts		438,189,599
Written options contracts		622,800,620

(a) Options purchased are part of Investments as shown in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities and change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments as shown in the Statement of Operations.

(b) Averages are based on activity levels during 2011.

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts to buy:

Settlement Date		Counterparty	Contracts to Buy			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
	1/4/2012	Barclays Bank plc		299,106	BRL	$	160,357	$	159,455	$	902
	1/4/2012	UBS AG		299,106	BRL		160,357		167,005		(6,648	)
	2/9/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		23,464,000	CAD		23,056,013		22,982,967		73,046
	2/13/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		37,170,584	CNY		5,900,669		5,738,415		162,254
	6/1/2012	Barclays Bank plc		29,421,600	CNY		4,664,835		4,600,000		64,835

33

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - continued

Settlement Date		Counterparty	Contracts to Buy			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
	6/1/2012	Barclays Bank plc		43,219,513	CNY	$	6,852,513	$	6,781,127	$	71,386
	2/17/2012	Barclays Bank plc		228,000	EUR		295,838		305,627		(9,789	)
	2/17/2012	Barclays Bank plc		6,616,000	EUR		8,584,478		8,613,311		(28,833	)
	2/17/2012	Citibank N.A.		5,349,000	EUR		6,940,504		7,292,628		(352,124	)
	2/17/2012	Citibank N.A.		1,384,000	EUR		1,795,786		1,872,429		(76,643	)
	2/17/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		1,968,000	EUR		2,553,544		2,659,722		(106,178	)
	2/17/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		501,000	EUR		650,064		682,437		(32,373	)
	2/17/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		185,000	EUR		240,043		249,359		(9,316	)
	2/17/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		1,653,000	EUR		2,144,822		2,151,531		(6,709	)
	1/31/2012	Citibank N.A.		17,814,000,000	IDR		1,959,472		1,963,408		(3,936	)
	1/31/2012	UBS AG		65,744,700,000	IDR		7,231,664		7,345,777		(114,113	)
	7/12/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		1,423,217,100	INR		25,965,101		30,619,989		(4,654,888	)
	2/27/2012	Citibank N.A.		22,870,692,000	KRW		19,779,844		20,433,944		(654,100	)
	3/15/2012	Citibank N.A.		136,626,173	MXN		9,734,687		10,012,177		(277,490	)
	4/23/2012	Citibank N.A.		3,095,462	MYR		971,865		1,000,149		(28,284	)
	4/23/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		29,334,478	MYR		9,209,988		9,671,770		(461,782	)
	3/15/2012	Barclays Bank plc		350,497,090	PHP		7,964,093		8,199,721		(235,628	)
	3/15/2012	Citibank N.A.		428,905,200	PHP		9,745,704		9,890,584		(144,880	)
	2/10/2012	Goldman Sachs & Co.		12,200,915	SGD		9,421,317		9,388,930		32,387
	Net Unrealized Depreciation									$	(6,798,904	)

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts to sell:

Settlement Date		Counterparty	Contracts to Deliver			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
	2/23/2012	Citibank N.A.		8,378,000	AUD	$	8,538,859	$	8,252,791	$	(286,068	)
	2/23/2012	Citibank N.A.		7,962,000	AUD		8,114,872		7,843,008		(271,864	)
	2/23/2012	Citibank N.A.		4,740,000	AUD		4,831,009		4,737,505		(93,504	)
	2/23/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		2,139,000	AUD		2,180,069		2,110,872		(69,197	)
	2/23/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		101,460,000	AUD		103,408,047		99,696,118		(3,711,929	)
	1/4/2012	Barclays Bank plc		299,106	BRL		160,357		155,931		(4,426	)
	1/4/2012	UBS AG		299,106	BRL		160,357		159,455		(902	)
	3/2/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		2,515,984	BRL		1,332,140		1,340,000		7,860
	3/2/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		568,590	BRL		301,052		300,000		(1,052	)
	3/2/2012	UBS AG		299,106	BRL		158,368		165,088		6,720
	2/9/2012	Citibank N.A.		3,181,000	CAD		3,125,689		3,132,065		6,376
	2/9/2012	UBS AG		4,579,000	CAD		4,499,381		4,490,580		(8,801	)
	2/17/2012	Barclays Bank plc		47,256,000	EUR		61,316,217		65,303,775		3,987,558

34

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - continued

Settlement Date		Counterparty	Contracts to Deliver			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
	2/17/2012	Barclays Bank plc		93,484,000	EUR	$	121,298,571	$	126,373,073	$	5,074,502
	2/17/2012	UBS AG		71,340,000	EUR		92,566,001		96,327,548		3,761,547
	2/17/2012	UBS AG		241,000	EUR		312,705		321,406		8,701
	3/12/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		42,881,000	GBP		66,575,142		67,251,344		676,202
	1/31/2012	Goldman Sachs & Co.		38,505,983,300	IDR		4,235,510		4,178,620		(56,890	)
	1/31/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		8,706,750,000	IDR		957,709		950,000		(7,709	)
	1/31/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		23,491,490,000	IDR		2,583,973		2,573,000		(10,973	)
	1/31/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		1,078,924,400	IDR		118,677		117,020		(1,657	)
	1/31/2012	UBS AG		11,776,050,000	IDR		1,295,320		1,287,000		(8,320	)
	7/12/2012	Barclays Bank plc		195,741,000	INR		3,571,089		3,900,000		328,911
	7/12/2012	Barclays Bank plc		204,000,000	INR		3,721,766		4,000,000		278,234
	7/12/2012	Barclays Bank plc		121,141,000	INR		2,210,090		2,300,000		89,910
	7/12/2012	Barclays Bank plc		111,678,000	INR		2,037,448		2,100,000		62,552
	7/12/2012	Barclays Bank plc		170,976,000	INR		3,119,278		3,120,000		722
	7/12/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		97,171,409	INR		1,772,790		1,754,630		(18,160	)
	7/12/2012	Goldman Sachs & Co.		109,866,900	INR		2,004,406		1,970,000		(34,406	)
	7/12/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		20,080,000	INR		366,339		400,000		33,661
	7/12/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		112,354,000	INR		2,049,781		2,200,000		150,219
	7/12/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		112,486,000	INR		2,052,189		2,200,000		147,811
	7/12/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		66,066,000	INR		1,205,305		1,293,383		88,078
	7/12/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		101,656,500	INR		1,854,616		1,830,000		(24,616	)
	1/13/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		298,248,000	JPY		3,874,314		3,884,737		10,423
	1/30/2012	Citibank N.A.		2,664,366,255	JPY		34,619,511		34,779,217		159,706
	1/30/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		2,664,366,255	JPY		34,619,511		34,796,932		177,421
	1/30/2012	Goldman Sachs & Co.		2,271,682,167	JPY		29,517,160		29,668,045		150,885
	1/30/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		2,664,366,255	JPY		34,619,511		34,778,309		158,798
	1/30/2012	UBS AG		545,219,068	JPY		7,084,318		7,121,694		37,376
	2/13/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		790,000,000	JPY		10,267,307		10,124,311		(142,996	)
	2/27/2012	Barclays Bank plc		2,022,660,000	KRW		1,749,309		1,800,000		50,691
	2/27/2012	Barclays Bank plc		2,169,800,000	KRW		1,876,564		1,900,000		23,436
	2/27/2012	Barclays Bank plc		4,433,650,000	KRW		3,834,467		3,800,000		(34,467	)
	2/27/2012	Barclays Bank plc		2,270,000,000	KRW		1,963,222		2,000,000		36,778
	2/27/2012	Barclays Bank plc		2,097,000,000	KRW		1,813,602		1,800,000		(13,602	)
	2/27/2012	Barclays Bank plc		930,400,000	KRW		804,662		800,000		(4,662	)
	2/27/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		930,240,000	KRW		804,523		800,000		(4,523	)
	2/27/2012	Goldman Sachs & Co.		2,551,279,500	KRW		2,206,488		2,189,000		(17,488	)
	2/27/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		3,023,650,000	KRW		2,615,020		2,650,000		34,980
	2/27/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		1,644,445,000	KRW		1,422,207		1,450,000		27,793

35

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - continued

Settlement Date		Counterparty	Contracts to Deliver			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
	2/27/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		796,950,000	KRW	$	689,247	$	700,000	$	10,753
	3/15/2012	UBS AG		28,910,960	MXN		2,059,921		2,080,000		20,079
	3/15/2012	UBS AG		21,983,330	MXN		1,566,324		1,580,000		13,676
	3/15/2012	UBS AG		52,244,623	MXN		3,722,457		3,745,000		22,543
	4/23/2012	Barclays Bank plc		3,561,868	MYR		1,118,300		1,115,000		(3,300	)
	4/23/2012	Barclays Bank plc		6,124,909	MYR		1,923,005		1,912,540		(10,465	)
	4/23/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		3,561,868	MYR		1,118,300		1,115,000		(3,300	)
	4/23/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		10,725,025	MYR		3,367,278		3,350,000		(17,278	)
	4/23/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		1,914,000	MYR		600,928		600,000		(928	)
	4/23/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		3,273,180	MYR		1,027,663		1,020,000		(7,663	)
	4/23/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		3,269,100	MYR		1,026,382		1,020,000		(6,382	)
	3/15/2012	Barclays Bank plc		104,376,000	PHP		2,371,661		2,400,000		28,339
	3/15/2012	Barclays Bank plc		96,338,000	PHP		2,189,019		2,200,000		10,981
	3/15/2012	Barclays Bank plc		92,776,700	PHP		2,108,098		2,110,000		1,902
	3/15/2012	Barclays Bank plc		120,663,000	PHP		2,741,739		2,725,000		(16,739	)
	3/15/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		87,420,700	PHP		1,986,398		1,990,000		3,602
	3/15/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		91,119,000	PHP		2,070,432		2,100,000		29,568
	3/15/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		95,502,000	PHP		2,170,023		2,200,000		29,977
	3/15/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		91,203,000	PHP		2,072,340		2,100,000		27,660
	2/10/2012	Barclays Bank plc		2,567,080	SGD		1,982,251		2,000,000		17,749
	2/10/2012	Barclays Bank plc		1,907,284	SGD		1,472,768		1,465,000		(7,768	)
	2/10/2012	Barclays Bank plc		1,885,271	SGD		1,455,771		1,442,000		(13,771	)
	2/10/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		1,907,064	SGD		1,472,599		1,465,000		(7,599	)
	2/10/2012	UBS AG		2,567,400	SGD		1,982,498		2,000,000		17,502
	2/10/2012	UBS AG		1,366,617	SGD		1,055,276		1,050,000		(5,276	)
	Net Unrealized Appreciation									$	10,883,501

AUD— Australian Dollar

BRL— Brazilian Real

CAD— Canadian Dollar

CNY— China Yuan Renminbi

EUR— Euro

GBP— British Pound

IDR— Indonesian Rupiah

INR— Indian Rupee

JPY— Japanese Yen

KRW— South Korean Won

MXN— Mexican Peso

MYR— Malaysian Ringgit

PHP— Philippine Peso

SGD— Singapore Dollar

36

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

7. Futures Contracts

The futures contracts outstanding as of December 31, 2011 and the description and unrealized appreciation (depreciation) were as follows:

Futures Contracts - Long	Exchange	Expiration Date		Number of Contracts		Contract Amount		Valuation as of December 31, 2011		Unrealized Appreciation
90 Day Euro Dollar Futures	Chicago Mercantile Exchange		3/18/2013		743	$	183,388,145	$	184,356,875	$	968,730
90 Day Euro Dollar Futures	Chicago Mercantile Exchange		6/17/2013		196		48,377,210		48,625,150		247,940
90 Day Euro Dollar Futures	Chicago Mercantile Exchange		9/16/2013		622		153,513,139		154,271,550		758,411
90 Day Euro Dollar Futures	Chicago Mercantile Exchange		12/16/2013		2,125		523,711,414		526,760,938		3,049,524
U.S. Treasury Note 10 Year Futures	Chicago Board of Trade		3/21/2012		13		1,700,170		1,704,625		4,455
Net Unrealized Appreciation										$	5,029,060

8. Options Written

Options written as of December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Inflation Floor

Description	Counterparty	Strike Index		Exercise Index	Expiration Date		Notional Amount			Premium			Market Value			Unrealized Appreciation
Floor - OTC CPURNSA Index	Deutsche Bank AG		215.949	Maximum of  ((1+0.000%)10 - Inflation Adjustment) or 0		3/10/2020	$	(5,100,000	)	$	(38,250	)	$	(22,978	)	$	15,272
Floor - OTC CPURNSA Index	Citibank N.A.		215.949	Maximum of ((1+0.000%)10 - Inflation Adjustment) or 0		3/12/2020		(13,900,000	)		(119,540	)		(53,149	)		66,391
Floor - OTC CPURNSA Index	Citibank N.A.		216.687	Maximum of ((1+0.000%)10 - Inflation Adjustment) or 0		4/7/2020		(49,000,000	)		(436,720	)		(194,398	)		242,322
Floor - OTC CPURNSA Index	Citibank N.A.		217.965	Maximum of ((1+0.000%)10 - Inflation Adjustment) or 0		9/29/2020		(4,700,000	)		(60,630	)		(19,793	)		40,837
Total										$	(655,140	)	$	(290,318	)	$	364,822

CPURNSA— Consumer Price All Urban Non-Seasonally Adjusted

Interest Rate Swaptions

Description	Counterparty	Floating Rate Index	Pay/Receive Floating Rate	Exercise Rate			Expiration Date	Notional Amount			Premium			Market Value			Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
Put - OTC -3-Year Interest Rate Swap	Citibank N.A.	3-Month USD-LIBOR	Pay		3.000	%	6/18/2012	$	(59,100,000	)	$	(657,643	)	$	(1,915	)	$	655,728
Put - OTC -3-Year Interest Rate Swap	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	3-Month USD-LIBOR	Pay		3.000	%	6/18/2012		(40,700,000	)		(431,713	)		(1,318	)		430,395
Put - OTC -3-Year Interest Rate Swap	Deutsche Bank AG	3-Month USD-LIBOR	Pay		3.000	%	6/18/2012		(16,000,000	)		(178,832	)		(518	)		178,314
Put - OTC -3-Year Interest Rate Swap	Barclays Bank plc	3-Month USD-LIBOR	Pay		3.000	%	6/18/2012		(3,600,000	)		(31,637	)		(117	)		31,520
Call - OTC -2-Year Interest Rate Swap	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.	3-Month USD-LIBOR	Receive		0.915	%	11/14/2012		(42,500,000	)		—			(188,292	)		(188,292	)
Put - OTC -2-Year Interest Rate Swap	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.	3-Month USD-LIBOR	Pay		0.915	%	11/14/2012		(42,500,000	)		—			(149,880	)		(149,880	)
Call - OTC -2-Year Interest Rate Swap	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.	3-Month USD-LIBOR	Receive		1.056	%	10/11/2012		(37,100,000	)		—			(240,408	)		(240,408	)

37

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

8. Options Written - continued

Description	Counterparty	Floating Rate Index	Pay/Receive Floating Rate	Exercise Rate			Expiration Date	Notional Amount			Premium			Market Value			Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
Put - OTC -2-Year Interest Rate Swap	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.	3-Month USD-LIBOR	Pay		1.056	%	10/11/2012	$	(37,100,000	)	$	—		$	(88,417	)	$	(88,417	)
Put - OTC -1-Year Interest Rate Swap	Goldman Sachs & Co.	3-Month USD-LIBOR	Pay		1.000	%	11/19/2012		(39,500,000	)		(225,359	)		(53,361	)		171,998
Call - OTC -1-Year Interest Rate Swap	Goldman Sachs & Co.	3-Month USD-LIBOR	Receive		0.795	%	10/11/2012		(17,700,000	)		—			(36,239	)		(36,239	)
Put - OTC -1-Year Interest Rate Swap	Goldman Sachs & Co.	3-Month USD-LIBOR	Pay		0.795	%	10/11/2012		(17,700,000	)		—			(30,419	)		(30,419	)
Call - OTC -1-Year Interest Rate Swap	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	3-Month USD-LIBOR	Receive		0.795	%	10/11/2012		(17,200,000	)		—			(35,215	)		(35,215	)
Put - OTC -1-Year Interest Rate Swap	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	3-Month USD-LIBOR	Pay		0.795	%	10/11/2012		(17,200,000	)		—			(29,560	)		(29,560	)
Total											$	(1,525,184	)	$	(855,659	)	$	669,525

The Portfolio transactions in options written during the period ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Call Options	Notional Amount			Premium received
Options outstanding December 31, 2010		286,400,719		$	1,749,287
Options written		377,100,458			1,334,381
Options bought back		(140,001,058	)		(1,190,728	)
Options expired		(409,000,119	)		(1,892,940	)
Options outstanding December 31, 2011		114,500,000		$	—
Put Options	Notional Amount			Premium received
Options outstanding December 31, 2010		417,200,719		$	3,534,538
Options written		679,900,553			3,030,170
Options bought back		(592,501,153	)		(3,594,804	)
Options expired		(158,500,119	)		(789,580	)
Options outstanding December 31, 2011		346,100,000		$	2,180,324

9. Reverse Repurchase Agreements

Reverse repurchase agreements as of December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Counterparty	Interest Rate			Settlement Date		Maturity Date		Par Value			Closing Amount
Deutsche Bank AG		0.17	%		10/11/2011		3/9/2012		USD	71,062,500	$	71,062,500
Deutsche Bank AG		0.19	%		10/11/2011		3/9/2012		USD	159,183,563		159,183,563
Total											$	230,246,063

Securities pledged as collateral against open reverse repurchase agreements are noted in the Schedule of Investments.

USD—United States Dollar

38

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

10. Swap Agreements

Open interest rate swap agreements at December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Pay/Receive Floating Rate	Floating Rate Index	Fixed Rate			Maturity Date		Counterparty	Notional Amount			Market Value			Upfront Premium Paid/ (Received)			Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
Receive	USD 3ML		4.000	%		12/21/2041	Citibank N.A.		USD	14,800,000	$	(4,354,859	)	$	(3,182,000	)	$	(1,172,859	)
Receive	USD 3ML		4.000	%		12/21/2041	Deutsche Bank AG		USD	1,800,000		(529,645	)		(373,770	)		(155,875	)
Pay	EUR FRCPXTOB		1.850	%		10/15/2016	BNP Paribas S.A.		EUR	16,600,000		(390,784	)		(44,630	)		(346,154	)
Pay	EUR FRCPXTOB		1.850	%		10/15/2016	Barclays Bank plc		EUR	11,300,000		(266,015	)		(103,319	)		(162,696	)
Pay	USD CPURNSA		1.500	%		11/2/2012	Barclays Bank plc		USD	3,900,000		10,223			(2,613	)		12,836
Pay	USD CPURNSA		1.500	%		11/2/2012	BNP Paribas S.A.		USD	4,100,000		10,748			(2,132	)		12,880
Pay	BRL CDI		11.890	%		1/2/2013	Goldman Sachs & Co.		BRL	61,300,000		1,030,422			29,302			1,001,120
Pay	BRL CDI		12.170	%		1/2/2013	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		BRL	7,000,000		143,828			29,726			114,102
Pay	BRL CDI		11.980	%		1/2/2013	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		BRL	11,300,000		200,340			—			200,340
Pay	BRL CDI		9.970	%		1/2/2014	Barclays Bank plc		BRL	46,200,000		(153,978	)		—			(153,978	)
Pay	BRL CDI		10.580	%		1/2/2014	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		BRL	189,100,000		188,182			849,589			(661,407	)
Pay	BRL CDI		10.770	%		1/2/2014	UBS AG		BRL	25,500,000		71,605			83,635			(12,030	)
Pay	BRL CDI		10.380	%		1/2/2014	UBS AG		BRL	6,300,000		(2	)		21,325			(21,327	)
Total											$	(4,039,935	)	$	(2,694,887	)	$	(1,345,048	)

Open credit default swaps at December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Credit Default Swaps on Corporate and Sovereign Issuers - Buy Protection(a)

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal (Pay) Rate			Maturity Date		Counterparty	Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2011(b)			Notional Amount(c)		Market Value			Upfront Premium Paid/ (Received)		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
Black and Decker Corp. (The) 8.950%, due 4/15/2014		(2.200	%)		6/20/2014	Citibank N.A.		0.24	%		$  2,000,000	$	(97,540	)	$	—	$	(97,540	)
D.R. Horton, Inc. 5.375%, due 6/15/2012		(1.000	%)		3/20/2015	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		1.87	%		7,500,000		186,386			403,143		(216,757	)
Echostar DBS Corp. 6.625%, due 10/1/2014		(3.650	%)		12/20/2013	Citibank N.A.		1.76	%		6,200,000		(241,712	)		—		(241,712	)
International Lease Finance Corp. 6.625%, due 11/15/2013		(1.530	%)		12/20/2013	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		7.07	%		1,100,000		103,733			—		103,733
Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. 4.750%, due 6/15/2017		(3.000	%)		3/20/2014	Goldman Sachs & Co.		5.08	%		EUR  7,000,000		372,124			405,884		(33,760	)
Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. 4.750%, due 6/15/2017		(3.000	%)		3/20/2014	JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.		5.05	%		$16,400,000		677,482			768,895		(91,413	)
Lexmark International, Inc. 5.900%, due 6/1/2013		(1.170	%)		6/20/2013	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		0.76	%		5,000,000		(15,483	)		—		(15,483	)
Total												$	984,990		$	1,577,922	$	(592,932	)

39

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

10. Swap Agreements - continued

Credit Default Swaps on Corporate and Sovereign Issuers - Sell Protection(d)

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal (Pay) Rate			Maturity Date		Counterparty	Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2011(b)			Notional Amount(c)		Market Value			Upfront Premium Paid/ (Received)			Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
AIG, Inc. 6.250%, due 5/1/2036		1.000	%		12/20/2020	Deutsche Bank AG		4.88	%	$	600,000	$	(135,534	)	$	(128,397	)	$	(7,137	)
AIG, Inc. 6.250%, due 5/1/2036		1.000	%		12/20/2020	Goldman Sachs & Co.		4.88	%		3,600,000		(813,200	)		(859,772	)		46,572
AIG, Inc. 6.250%, due 5/1/2036		1.000	%		12/20/2020	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		4.98	%		700,000		(158,122	)		(172,815	)		14,693
AIG, Inc. 6.250%, due 5/1/2036		1.000	%		12/20/2020	UBS AG		4.88	%		700,000		(158,122	)		(150,288	)		(7,834	)
AIG / ILFC Senior Unsecured 8.250%, due 12/15/2020		5.000	%		6/20/2016	Citibank N.A.		6.78	%		1,500,000		(87,326	)		(93,750	)		6,424
AIG / ILFC Senior Unsecured 8.250%, due 12/15/2020		5.000	%		6/20/2016	Deutsche Bank AG		6.78	%		1,200,000		(69,860	)		(63,000	)		(6,860	)
Brazilian Government International Bond 12.250%, due 3/6/2030		1.000	%		6/20/2020	Deutsche Bank AG		1.81	%		7,200,000		(437,687	)		(238,660	)		(199,027	)
Brazilian Government International Bond 12.250%, due 3/6/2030		1.000	%		6/20/2015	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		1.29	%		2,500,000		(25,835	)		(28,451	)		2,616
Government of France 4.250%, due 4/25/2019		0.250	%		12/20/2015	Citibank N.A.		1.97	%		600,000		(39,182	)		(16,501	)		(22,681	)
Government of France 4.250%, due 4/25/2019		0.250	%		12/20/2015	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		1.97	%		10,000,000		(653,026	)		(201,044	)		(451,982	)
Government of Japan 2.000% due 3/21/2022		1.000	%		12/20/2015	Deutsche Bank AG		1.26	%		1,100,000		(9,267	)		22,879			(32,146	)
Government of Japan 2.000% due 3/21/2022		1.000	%		12/20/2015	Goldman Sachs & Co.		1.26	%		4,400,000		(37,066	)		92,772			(129,838	)
Government of Japan 2.000% due 3/21/2022		1.000	%		12/20/2015	Goldman Sachs & Co.		1.22	%		5,500,000		(46,333	)		113,527			(159,860	)
Government of Japan 2.000% due 3/21/2022		1.000	%		12/20/2015	Goldman Sachs & Co.		1.26	%		2,300,000		(19,376	)		51,101			(70,477	)
Government of Japan 2.000% due 3/21/2022		1.000	%		12/20/2015	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		1.22	%		4,500,000		(37,910	)		92,584			(130,494	)
Government of Japan 2.000% due 3/21/2022		1.000	%		6/20/2016	Citibank N.A.		1.34	%		9,500,000		(124,946	)		(4,643	)		(120,303	)
Petrobras International Bond 8.375%, due 12/10/2018		1.000	%		9/20/2012	Deutsche Bank AG		0.89	%		700,000		676			(8,684	)		9,360
United Kingdom Gilt 4.250%, due 6/7/2032		1.000	%		6/20/2015	Citibank N.A.		0.71	%		1,500,000		15,181			12,189			2,992
United Kingdom Gilt 4.250%, due 6/7/2032		1.000	%		6/20/2015	Deutsche Bank AG		0.72	%		5,100,000		51,614			43,720			7,894
United Kingdom Gilt 4.250%, due 6/7/2032		1.000	%		6/20/2015	Deutsche Bank AG		0.72	%		1,800,000		18,217			8,560			9,657
United Kingdom Gilt 4.250%, due 6/7/2032		1.000	%		12/20/2015	Credit Suisse Group AG		0.80	%		2,100,000		16,923			49,257			(32,334	)
United Kingdom Gilt 4.250%, due 6/7/2032		1.000	%		12/20/2015	Deutsche Bank AG		0.79	%		2,700,000		21,759			62,664			(40,905	)

40

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

10. Swap Agreements - continued

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal (Pay) Rate			Maturity Date		Counterparty		Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2011(b)			Notional Amount(c)		Market Value			Upfront Premium Paid/ (Received)			Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
United Kingdom Gilt 4.250%, due 6/7/2032		1.000	%		6/20/2016		Citibank N.A.		0.88	%		2,800,000	$	15,507		$	34,749		$	(19,242	)
Total													$	(2,712,915	)	$	(1,382,003	)	$	(1,330,912	)

Credit Default Swaps on Credit Indices - Sell Protection(d)

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal (Pay) Rate			Maturity Date		Counterparty	Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2011(b)			Notional Amount(c)		Market Value		Upfront Premium Paid/ (Received)		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
Markit CDX Emerging Index, Series 14		5.000	%		12/20/2015	Deutsche Bank AG		2.86	%	$	3,200,000	$	250,675	$	474,400	$	(223,725	)
Markit CDX Emerging Index, Series 14		5.000	%		12/20/2015	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		2.86	%		7,000,000		548,352		987,000		(438,648	)
Markit CDX Emerging Index, Series 14		5.000	%		12/20/2015	UBS AG		2.86	%		4,200,000		329,011		592,200		(263,189	)
Markit CDX Emerging Index, Series 14		5.000	%		12/20/2015	Citibank N.A.		2.86	%		30,900,000		2,420,582		4,143,505		(1,722,923	)
Markit CDX Emerging Index, Series 15		5.000	%		6/20/2016	Barclays Bank plc		2.95	%		2,500,000		208,801		337,500		(128,699	)
Total												$	3,757,421	$	6,534,605	$	(2,777,184	)

BRL — Brazilian Real

EUR — Euro

USD — United States Dollar

(a) If the Portfolio is a buyer of protection and a credit event occurs, as defined under the terms of that particular swap agreement, the Portfolio will either (i) receive from the seller of protection an amount equal to the notional amount of the swap and deliver the referenced obligation or underlying securities comprising the referenced index or (ii) receive a net settlement amount in the form of cash or securities equal to the notional amount of the swap less the recovery value of the referenced obligation or underlying securities comprising the referenced index.

(b) Implied credit spreads, represented in absolute terms, utilized in determining the market value of credit default swap agreements on corporate issues or sovereign issues of an emerging country as of period end serve as an indicator of the current status of the payment/performance risk and represent the likelihood or risk of default for the credit derivative. The implied credit spread of a particular referenced entity reflects the cost of buying/selling protection and may include upfront payments required to be made to enter into the agreement. Wider credit spreads represent a deterioration of the referenced entity’s credit soundness and a greater likelihood or risk of default or other credit event occurring as defined under the terms of the agreement. A credit spread identified as “Defaulted” indicates a credit event has occurred for the referenced entity or obligation.

(c) The maximum potential amount of future undiscounted payments that the Portfolio could be required to make under a credit default swap contract would be the notional amount of the contract. These potential amounts would be partially offset by any recovery values of the referenced debt obligation or net amounts received from the settlement purchased protection credit default swap contracts entered into by the Portfolio for the same referenced debt obligation.

(d) If the Portfolio is a seller of protection and a credit event occurs, as defined under the terms of that particular swap agreement, the Portfolio will either (i) pay to the buyer of protection an amount equal to the notional amount of the swap and take delivery of the referenced obligation or underlying securities comprising the referenced index or (ii) pay a net settlement amount in the form of cash or securities equal to the notional amount of the swap less the recovery value of the referenced obligation or underlying securities comprising the referenced index.

41

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

11. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

12. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

13. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gains				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$189,579,364	$	123,896,040	$	6,687,680	$	—	$	196,267,044	$	123,896,040

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Depreciation			Loss Carryforwards		Total
$310,184,069	$	19,276,721	$	(37,653,136	)	$	—	$	291,807,654

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses. At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not have any capital loss carryforwards.

14. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures

42

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

14. Recent Accounting Pronouncements - continued

about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

43

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 28, 2012

44

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

45

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

46

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

47

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

48

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the one-, three- and five-year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Barclays Capital U.S. Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) Index, for the one- year period ended September 30, 2011, and outperformed its benchmark for the three- and five- year periods ended September 30, 2011. The Board also took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s overall performance was satisfactory.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to

49

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the Expense Group median, the Expense Universe median and the Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were above the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were above the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

50

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee and sub-advisory fee each contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s management fees are below the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at asset levels up to $500 million, after which the Portfolio’s management fees are above the asset-weighted average of comparable funds. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

51

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust PIMCO Total Return Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Managed by Pacific Investment Management Company LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A, B, and E shares of the PIMCO Total Return Portfolio returned 3.42%, 3.17%, and 3.37%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index¹, returned 7.84%.

Market Environment/Conditions

In 2011, the global financial markets consistently made headlines for their persistent volatility resulting from a variety of unpredictable forces on both Main Street and Wall Street. Toward the beginning of the year, global markets struggled to absorb implications of intensified political unrest across the Middle East and North Africa, rising commodity prices, and the terrible earthquake and nuclear accidents in Japan.

Treasury yields declined as the U.S. debt ceiling debate, S&P’s downgrade of the U.S. long-term credit rating, and concern about the sovereign debt crisis in Europe sparked a flight to safety and boosted demand for Treasuries. European countries, including Ireland, Italy, and Spain continued to struggle with sovereign debt levels, increasing pressure on European leaders to develop a comprehensive policy response. In an effort to reinvigorate the faltering economy, the Federal Reserve (the Fed) launched “Operation Twist,” signaling its intent to buy $400 billion of long-dated Treasuries by the end of June 2012. To finance this program, the Fed agreed to sell Treasury securities with remaining maturities of 3 years or less to make financial conditions more accommodative by putting downward pressure on longer-term interest rates.

Toward the end of the year, global financial markets digested improving U.S. economic data and uncertainty surrounding the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis. A rebound in U.S. consumption improved investor risk appetites and helped most fixed income sectors outperform Treasuries. Despite improving consumer confidence in the U.S., the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis continued to fuel volatility in the global financial markets. In response to these pressures, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) announced a liquidity program designed to provide more favorable financing conditions for countries struggling with escalating borrowing costs. Despite the IMF’s efforts and the growth of the European Financial Stability Fund (EFSF), many Eurozone countries still faced increasing unemployment and worsening debt-to-Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ratios into the year end.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

The Portfolio underperformed its benchmark for the year. An underweight to duration in the U.S. detracted from performance as rates fell on global growth concerns and worries about European sovereign debt. An underweight to the long end of the U.S. yield curve, implemented via interest rate swaps, also detracted from returns as long term yields fell more than short-term yields. However, interest rate exposure in core Europe, the U.K., and Canada added to performance as rates fell globally.

A focus on investment grade corporate financials detracted from performance as this sector underperformed like-duration Treasuries and the broader investment grade corporate sector. Exposure to a variety of foreign currencies, with an emphasis on the Brazilian real and the Mexican peso, detracted from returns as the U.S. dollar appreciated against most developed and emerging market currencies. Modest exposure to Build America Bonds added to returns as this sector continued to appeal to investors amid its attractive risk-adjusted yields. An overweight to emerging market (EM) local rates, particularly Brazil, was positive for performance.

As of December 31, the Portfolio was positioned defensively to mitigate risks of default and permanent loss. The Portfolio continued to focus on high quality yield with a focus on liquidity. At period end, the Portfolio had an overweight to duration with a focus on the U.S. while diversifying duration to other high quality sovereigns, including Canada, Australia, and Brazil. The Portfolio concentrated on intermediate maturities that offer the best potential for price appreciation.

At year end, the Portfolio had a modest overweight to agency mortgages after being neutral to underweight for a majority of the year. Additionally, the Portfolio had a small allocation to non-agency mortgage backed securities which offer relatively attractive yields. With regard to credit, the Portfolio maintained an overweight to well-capitalized U.S. financials, given their strong fundamentals. As of December 31, the Portfolio had an allocation to taxable Build America Bonds, which diversify credit risk versus the corporate market. The Portfolio had exposure to emerging market sovereign and corporate credits, such as those in Mexico and Brazil, that have strong credit fundamentals and higher real yields. Additionally, the Portfolio held a small currency exposure to countries with sound fiscal conditions such as China and Brazil; it also continued to maintain positions that could gain from a depreciation of the British pound and the euro.

William Gross

Pacific Investment Management Company LLC

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Managed by Pacific Investment Management Company LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool		41.4
U.S. Treasury Notes		22.7
Japan Treasury Bills		7.8
Freddie Mac 30 Yr. Gold Pool		3.5
U.S. Treasury Inflation Indexed Bonds		2.5
Fannie Mae 15 Yr. Pool		2.2
Brazil Notas do Tesouro Nacional		1.6
Barclays Bank plc		1.6
Province of Ontario		1.3
United Kingdom Gilt		1.2

Top Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies		57.4
Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities		20.6
Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities		10.8
Mortgage-Backed Securities		3.4
Municipals		2.7
Cash & Cash Equivalents		2.3
Asset-Backed Securities		1.4
Preferred Stocks		0.7
Convertible Preferred Stocks		0.5
Loan Participation		0.2

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio managed by

Pacific Investment Management Company LLC vs. Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year
PIMCO Total Return Portfolio—Class A		3.42%		7.58%		6.43%
Class B		3.17%		7.30%		6.17%
Class E		3.37%		7.42%		6.28%
Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index1		7.84%		6.50%		5.78%

The performance of Class B shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹ The Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index is a broad-based benchmark that measures the investment grade, U.S. dollar-denominated, fixed-rate taxable bond market, including Treasuries, government-related and corporate securities, mortgage-backed securities, asset-backed securities and commercial mortgaged-backed securities.

² “Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A
Actual		0.52%	$	1,000.00	$	1,004.10	$	2.63
Hypothetical*		0.52%		1,000.00		1,022.58		2.65
Class B
Actual		0.77%	$	1,000.00	$	1,003.40	$	3.89
Hypothetical*		0.77%		1,000.00		1,021.32		3.92
Class E
Actual		0.67%	$	1,000.00	$	1,004.20	$	3.38
Hypothetical*		0.67%		1,000.00		1,021.82		3.41

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—73.8% of Net Assets

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed—48.3%
Fannie Mae 10 Yr. Pool 4.000%, 08/01/13		51,549	$	54,326
3.500%, 09/01/13		29,280		30,534
4.000%, 09/01/13		142,593		147,946
3.500%, 10/01/13		45,728		46,340
4.000%, 12/01/13		380,375		401,719
4.000%, 03/01/14		13,916		14,685
4.000%, 05/01/14		568,191		599,609
3.500%, 06/01/14		12,316		12,891
4.000%, 06/01/14		299,267		315,815
3.500%, 07/01/14		25,112		26,285
4.000%, 07/01/14		7,083		7,474
4.000%, 09/01/15		4,775		5,040
5.500%, 04/01/16		108,852		118,320
5.500%, 06/01/16		36,167		39,312
5.500%, 06/01/16		23,938		26,020
4.500%, 04/01/17		308,025		328,919
4.500%, 06/01/17		232,674		248,480
5.500%, 08/01/17		9,992		10,861
4.500%, 03/01/18		319,797		341,603
5.500%, 09/01/18		622,859		677,033
5.500%, 10/01/18		295,300		320,985
4.500%, 11/01/18		113,311		121,062
4.500%, 12/01/18		63,520		67,867
Fannie Mae 15 Yr. Pool 5.500%, 03/01/13		6,887		7,478
5.500%, 11/01/13		5,782		6,279
6.500%, 12/01/13		1,195		1,227
5.500%, 01/01/14		9,968		10,824
5.500%, 02/01/14		6,002		6,518
5.500%, 03/01/14		8,137		8,836
5.500%, 04/01/14		109,511		118,915
5.500%, 04/01/14		9,374		10,179
5.500%, 06/01/14		8,783		9,537
8.000%, 08/01/14		1,533		1,619
5.500%, 09/01/14		492,344		534,623
5.500%, 12/01/14		148,636		161,399
5.500%, 08/01/15		1,485,615		1,538,985
5.500%, 03/01/16		15,251		16,561
6.500%, 04/01/16		42,235		46,271
6.500%, 06/01/16		22,796		24,975
6.500%, 07/01/16		65,625		71,897
6.500%, 08/01/16		4,252		4,658
6.000%, 09/01/16		11,551		12,494
6.500%, 09/01/16		25,593		28,039
6.500%, 10/01/16		54,781		60,018
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed—(Continued)
5.500%, 11/01/16		10,517	$	11,426
5.500%, 12/01/16		9,248		10,048
5.500%, 01/01/17		10,834		11,771
6.500%, 02/01/17		32,608		35,725
6.000%, 03/01/17		11,349		12,290
6.000%, 04/01/17		25,667		27,819
6.000%, 06/01/17		18,489		20,023
6.000%, 07/01/17		60,550		65,874
6.500%, 07/01/17		32,061		35,237
5.500%, 09/01/17		12,792		13,906
5.500%, 10/01/17		9,107		9,901
6.500%, 10/01/17		14,263		15,675
5.500%, 12/01/17		13,685		15,044
5.500%, 01/01/18		362,620		394,118
5.500%, 02/01/18		3,228,591		3,509,894
5.500%, 02/01/18		129,599		140,728
4.500%, 06/01/18		159,198		170,511
4.500%, 08/01/18		22,808		24,778
5.500%, 11/01/18		11,504		12,506
4.500%, 06/01/20		80,412		85,774
5.500%, 09/01/20		53,048		57,770
5.500%, 12/01/20		10,674		11,603
3.330%, 11/01/21		1,597,764		1,695,687
4.000%, 03/01/22		240,784		256,203
5.500%, 03/01/22		897,266		974,407
5.500%, 04/01/22		488,713		535,415
5.500%, 04/01/22		37,965		41,229
5.500%, 07/01/22		614,155		668,162
5.500%, 09/01/22		259,790		282,124
5.500%, 10/01/22		2,150,285		2,335,152
5.500%, 11/01/22		568,211		617,062
5.500%, 12/01/22		512,980		557,083
4.500%, 01/01/23		1,492,660		1,593,140
4.500%, 02/01/23		1,156,280		1,234,115
5.500%, 02/01/23		812,210		882,039
4.500%, 03/01/23		667,306		712,227
5.500%, 03/01/23		100,358		108,986
4.500%, 04/01/23		1,924,943		2,054,523
4.500%, 05/01/23		2,437,084		2,601,138
4.500%, 06/01/23		2,878,330		3,072,089
4.500%, 07/01/23		1,684,013		1,797,375
5.500%, 07/01/23		46,725		50,742
5.500%, 08/01/23		329,553		357,886
5.500%, 10/01/23		461,012		500,647
5.500%, 11/01/23		46,865		50,779
5.500%, 12/01/23		220,995		240,111

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed—(Continued)
4.500%, 01/01/24		74,306	$	79,262
5.500%, 01/01/24		63,235		68,671
4.500%, 03/01/24		5,575,359		5,948,174
4.000%, 04/01/24		230,956		243,724
4.500%, 04/01/24		2,745,054		2,929,661
4.500%, 05/01/24		4,690,141		5,005,864
4.000%, 07/01/24		209,030		220,586
4.500%, 08/01/24		11,813		12,601
5.500%, 09/01/24		247,913		269,357
4.500%, 10/01/24		1,570,497		1,675,235
4.000%, 11/01/24		343,833		362,842
4.500%, 11/01/24		397,862		424,752
5.500%, 01/01/25		4,550,628		4,941,859
4.500%, 02/01/25		1,726,794		1,841,956
4.500%, 03/01/25		2,499,726		2,666,436
4.500%, 04/01/25		742,746		792,280
4.500%, 05/01/25		3,147,986		3,357,928
4.500%, 06/01/25		372,467		397,307
4.000%, 09/01/25		227,034		239,585
4.500%, 09/01/25		429,134		457,754
4.500%, 11/01/25		353,363		376,930
4.500%, 03/01/26		3,205,998		3,421,813
4.500%, 04/01/26		60,952		65,246
4.000%, 06/01/26		186,108		196,630
3.000%, TBA (a)		61,000,000		62,820,466
3.500%, TBA (a)		57,200,000		59,827,625
4.500%, TBA (a)		27,000,000		28,788,750
5.500%, TBA (a)		500,000		542,422
Fannie Mae 20 Yr. Pool 6.000%, 08/01/18		13,284		14,638
6.000%, 12/01/18		17,237		18,993
5.500%, 02/01/19		66,699		72,684
6.000%, 02/01/19		29,630		32,650
6.000%, 06/01/22		2,211,518		2,436,894
5.500%, 09/01/22		17,522		19,226
6.000%, 09/01/22		575,311		635,480
5.500%, 10/01/22		133,191		146,140
6.000%, 10/01/22		357,719		395,739
6.000%, 01/01/23		672,519		743,998
5.500%, 06/01/23		917,611		1,006,824
5.500%, 03/01/25		1,906,658		2,094,412
5.500%, 11/01/26		74,275		81,009
5.500%, 01/01/27		312,228		340,535
5.500%, 06/01/27		57,852		63,061
5.500%, 08/01/27		624,542		680,773
5.500%, 11/01/27		228,602		249,184
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed—(Continued)
6.000%, 11/01/27		52,265	$	57,607
5.500%, 12/01/27		545,762		594,900
5.500%, 03/01/28		277,927		302,951
5.500%, 04/01/28		774,550		844,286
5.500%, 05/01/28		351,608		383,265
5.500%, 06/01/28		105,550		115,053
5.500%, 07/01/28		59,396		64,688
5.500%, 09/01/28		951,328		1,036,089
6.000%, 09/01/28		279,478		307,785
5.500%, 10/01/28		154,878		168,677
6.000%, 10/01/28		250,052		275,379
5.500%, 12/01/28		66,905		72,867
5.500%, 01/01/29		889,417		968,662
4.500%, 05/01/29		1,536,292		1,644,521
5.500%, 07/01/29		389,196		423,872
5.500%, 10/01/29		987,847		1,075,862
5.500%, 04/01/30		1,103,250		1,201,547
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool 8.000%, 11/01/13		1,119		1,146
8.000%, 10/01/25		3,173		3,781
6.000%, 12/01/28		141,709		157,988
6.000%, 01/01/29		85,670		95,512
6.000%, 02/01/29		476,476		531,212
6.000%, 04/01/29		14,061		15,676
6.000%, 06/01/29		20,252		22,579
5.000%, 09/01/30		201,428		218,682
7.500%, 09/01/30		1,712		2,050
5.000%, 03/01/32		4,564		4,979
6.000%, 07/01/32		488,385		544,490
5.000%, 09/01/32		15,934		17,234
5.000%, 10/01/32		34,708		37,540
5.000%, 11/01/32		7,297		7,893
6.000%, 11/01/32		187,524		209,067
6.000%, 01/01/33		90,489		99,819
6.000%, 02/01/33		84,028		93,681
5.000%, 03/01/33		21,864		23,648
6.000%, 03/01/33		85,705		95,551
5.000%, 04/01/33		17,153,158		18,552,817
6.000%, 04/01/33		59,073		65,859
5.000%, 05/01/33		88,842,855		96,092,235
6.000%, 05/01/33		89,273		99,528
5.000%, 06/01/33		11,972,999		12,950,022
5.000%, 07/01/33		23,529,395		25,456,011
6.000%, 07/01/33		90,190		100,551
5.000%, 08/01/33		12,369		13,502
6.000%, 08/01/33		189,369		211,124

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed—(Continued)
5.000%, 09/01/33		16,607	$	18,109
5.000%, 10/01/33		93,653		102,231
5.000%, 11/01/33		2,905		3,172
5.000%, 01/01/34		489,966		534,326
6.000%, 01/01/34		9,956		11,100
5.000%, 02/01/34		3,179,358		3,438,786
5.000%, 03/01/34		6,310,159		6,825,054
5.000%, 04/01/34		706,660		771,389
5.500%, 05/01/34		184,451		201,548
5.000%, 06/01/34		19,948		21,763
5.500%, 06/01/34		159,117		173,865
5.500%, 07/01/34		141,524		155,438
5.500%, 09/01/34		28,932		31,613
6.000%, 09/01/34		155,975		174,234
5.000%, 10/01/34		8,673		9,380
5.000%, 11/01/34		5,196		5,620
5.500%, 11/01/34		1,350,342		1,475,507
6.000%, 11/01/34		40,920		45,480
5.000%, 12/01/34		22,128		23,934
5.500%, 12/01/34		32,271		35,262
5.000%, 01/01/35		543,137		592,673
5.500%, 01/01/35		1,950,421		2,131,209
5.000%, 02/01/35		9,765		10,562
5.500%, 02/01/35		2,592,448		2,832,745
5.000%, 03/01/35		38,013,241		41,115,036
5.000%, 04/01/35		38,882,026		42,054,699
6.000%, 04/01/35		3,987,930		4,446,060
5.000%, 05/01/35		19,444		21,026
6.000%, 05/01/35		193,373		213,895
5.000%, 06/01/35		22,067,327		23,867,970
5.000%, 07/01/35		80,587,076		87,160,540
6.000%, 07/01/35		351,371		389,454
5.000%, 08/01/35		17,384		18,800
5.000%, 09/01/35		50,440		54,541
6.000%, 09/01/35		69,227		76,574
5.000%, 10/01/35		1,270,749		1,374,043
4.000%, 11/01/35		446,337		471,175
5.000%, 11/01/35		959,653		1,037,660
6.000%, 12/01/35		347,882		386,254
5.000%, 02/01/36		7,771,249		8,402,938
5.000%, 03/01/36		21,037		22,747
6.000%, 03/01/36		504,702		556,846
6.000%, 05/01/36		2,009,241		2,219,416
6.000%, 06/01/36		1,253,389		1,382,885
5.000%, 07/01/36		143,579		155,295
5.500%, 07/01/36		7,066,799		7,721,831
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed—(Continued)
6.000%, 07/01/36		885,109	$	976,556
5.000%, 08/01/36		2,894,700		3,129,997
6.000%, 08/01/36		20,040,700		22,111,836
5.500%, 09/01/36		830,978		908,522
6.000%, 09/01/36		8,228,713		9,078,876
6.000%, 10/01/36		23,032,146		25,412,793
5.500%, 11/01/36		63,256		69,021
6.000%, 11/01/36		3,872,387		4,274,437
5.500%, 12/01/36		154,694		168,791
6.000%, 12/01/36		20,622,389		22,753,428
4.500%, 01/01/37		15,022,413		16,017,345
5.500%, 01/01/37		763,191		832,259
6.000%, 01/01/37		779,830		860,532
5.000%, 02/01/37		22,682,426		24,526,220
5.500%, 02/01/37		495,268		539,847
6.000%, 02/01/37		34,344,872		37,865,567
5.500%, 03/01/37		350,050		381,950
6.000%, 03/01/37		2,830,757		3,122,105
6.000%, 04/01/37		10,210,471		11,258,887
5.500%, 05/01/37		315,229		343,561
6.000%, 05/01/37		6,575,085		7,253,303
5.500%, 06/01/37		1,234,203		1,345,133
6.000%, 06/01/37		11,189,368		12,336,649
5.500%, 07/01/37		3,487,102		3,801,319
6.000%, 07/01/37		65,112,465		71,779,005
5.500%, 08/01/37		425,562		463,811
6.000%, 08/01/37		38,096,126		41,998,848
5.500%, 09/01/37		251,193		273,770
6.000%, 09/01/37		29,135,588		32,118,896
6.000%, 10/01/37		5,004,102		5,516,417
6.000%, 11/01/37		369,092		406,880
6.000%, 12/01/37		518,182		571,232
5.500%, 01/01/38		178,185		194,200
4.500%, 02/01/38		167,853		178,865
5.500%, 02/01/38		7,431,339		8,100,384
6.000%, 02/01/38		11,679,982		12,876,225
4.500%, 03/01/38		330,987		352,598
5.500%, 03/01/38		9,613,543		10,558,713
6.000%, 03/01/38		354,561		390,749
4.500%, 04/01/38		383,467		408,505
5.500%, 04/01/38		70,418		76,747
6.000%, 04/01/38		65,342		72,032
5.500%, 05/01/38		5,011,559		5,461,993
6.000%, 05/01/38		18,048,822		19,950,634
5.500%, 06/01/38		491,977		536,706
6.000%, 06/01/38		318,349		350,878

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed—(Continued)
5.500%, 07/01/38		472,426	$	514,887
6.000%, 07/01/38		7,535,147		8,304,234
6.000%, 08/01/38		2,906,721		3,203,455
6.000%, 09/01/38		9,814,163		10,816,771
5.500%, 10/01/38		38,248		41,686
6.000%, 10/01/38		6,159,397		6,789,890
6.000%, 11/01/38		3,019,248		3,327,954
6.000%, 12/01/38		3,348,865		3,698,320
4.000%, 01/01/39		289,321		304,291
4.500%, 01/01/39		140,357		149,522
5.500%, 01/01/39		923,720		1,006,743
6.000%, 01/01/39		1,840,484		2,032,471
4.000%, 02/01/39		192,020		201,956
4.500%, 02/01/39		35,832,471		38,172,057
4.500%, 03/01/39		2,560,991		2,728,204
4.000%, 04/01/39		1,333,318		1,402,310
4.500%, 04/01/39		159,609,809		170,031,362
5.500%, 04/01/39		140,347		152,961
6.000%, 04/01/39		1,147,142		1,263,975
4.500%, 05/01/39		2,586,532		2,755,413
4.500%, 06/01/39		23,557,814		25,095,958
6.000%, 06/01/39		346,138		381,359
4.500%, 07/01/39		380,051		404,865
6.000%, 07/01/39		12,994		14,324
4.500%, 08/01/39		1,817,427		1,936,091
6.000%, 08/01/39		189,661		209,078
4.500%, 09/01/39		4,290,036		4,570,142
5.500%, 09/01/39		1,616,586		1,778,001
4.500%, 11/01/39		2,365,253		2,519,686
4.000%, 12/01/39		1,540,330		1,621,050
4.500%, 12/01/39		1,702,442		1,813,599
4.500%, 01/01/40		823,096		876,837
4.500%, 02/01/40		3,911,131		4,166,500
4.500%, 03/01/40		4,734,181		5,043,287
4.500%, 04/01/40		134,409		143,186
4.500%, 05/01/40		916,674		976,526
6.000%, 05/01/40		20,795		23,074
4.500%, 06/01/40		1,279,137		1,363,087
4.000%, 07/01/40		69,267		72,891
4.500%, 07/01/40		4,338,631		4,621,911
4.000%, 08/01/40		1,374,826		1,445,965
4.500%, 08/01/40		50,558,495		53,824,234
4.000%, 09/01/40		2,431,411		2,557,221
4.500%, 09/01/40		116,949,442		124,585,347
4.000%, 10/01/40		7,430,370		7,814,848
4.500%, 10/01/40		48,644,581		51,820,699
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed—(Continued)
4.000%, 11/01/40		800,295	$	841,706
4.500%, 11/01/40		7,366,144		7,847,096
4.000%, 12/01/40		15,444,758		16,243,930
4.500%, 12/01/40		4,401,011		4,688,364
5.500%, 12/01/40		435,276		474,398
3.500%, 01/01/41		7,622,657		7,848,724
4.000%, 01/01/41		29,048,145		30,551,896
4.500%, 01/01/41		2,976,065		3,170,379
3.500%, 02/01/41		20,461,864		21,068,707
4.000%, 02/01/41		36,277,588		38,157,860
4.500%, 02/01/41		5,621,443		5,988,481
3.500%, 03/01/41		6,819,007		7,021,239
4.000%, 03/01/41		31,347,738		32,981,722
4.500%, 03/01/41		9,426,035		10,041,484
4.000%, 04/01/41		25,894,787		27,237,892
4.500%, 04/01/41		25,954,425		27,649,050
3.500%, 05/01/41		491,082		505,646
4.000%, 05/01/41		2,749,135		2,892,246
4.500%, 05/01/41		53,041,335		56,504,529
3.500%, 06/01/41		418,951		431,376
4.000%, 06/01/41		18,483,101		19,445,264
4.500%, 06/01/41		36,915,047		39,325,316
4.000%, 07/01/41		2,914,968		3,066,709
4.500%, 07/01/41		141,793		151,282
4.000%, 08/01/41		38,440,481		40,441,557
4.000%, 09/01/41		5,819,076		6,121,996
4.500%, 09/01/41		49,715		52,961
4.000%, 10/01/41		639,115		672,385
4.000%, 11/01/41		3,278,902		3,449,590
4.500%, 11/01/41		18,000,010		19,175,272
3.500%, TBA (a)		22,000,000		22,299,064
4.000%, TBA (a)		814,000,000		855,335,978
4.500%, TBA (a)		857,000,000		912,169,375
5.000%, TBA (a)		214,000,000		230,126,616
5.500%, TBA (a)		156,000,000		169,893,781
6.000%, TBA (a)		40,000,000		44,050,012
Fannie Mae ARM Pool 2.220%, 10/01/28 (b)		216,042		226,297
2.133%, 02/01/31 (b)		274,213		277,641
2.405%, 09/01/31 (b)		115,881		122,325
2.386%, 07/01/32 (b)		43,972		44,468
2.584%, 09/01/32 (b)		326,182		343,074
2.632%, 11/01/32 (b)		242,671		256,644
2.353%, 03/01/33 (b)		8,453		8,904
1.830%, 06/01/33 (b)		104,753		108,525
2.435%, 07/01/33 (b)		82,332		86,690

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed—(Continued)
2.501%, 04/01/34 (b)		26,700	$	28,103
2.410%, 05/01/34 (b)		1,610,890		1,698,699
2.560%, 09/01/34 (b)		2,180,606		2,309,831
4.699%, 09/01/34 (b)		201,061		215,736
2.336%, 10/01/34 (b)		45,145		47,566
2.295%, 11/01/34 (b)		11,738		12,342
2.521%, 11/01/34 (b)		6,602,234		7,011,174
2.525%, 11/01/34 (b)		320,174		338,042
2.113%, 12/01/34 (b)		4,067,285		4,225,013
2.225%, 12/01/34 (b)		1,356,639		1,413,897
2.371%, 12/01/34 (b)		136,366		142,472
1.964%, 01/01/35 (b)		547,052		575,128
2.334%, 01/01/35 (b)		196,006		206,093
2.354%, 01/01/35 (b)		152,360		160,855
2.366%, 01/01/35 (b)		155,133		162,041
2.394%, 01/01/35 (b)		54,674		57,579
2.379%, 02/01/35 (b)		101,326		106,812
2.413%, 02/01/35 (b)		463,563		490,709
2.143%, 03/01/35 (b)		138,070		144,189
2.685%, 04/01/35 (b)		303,054		319,652
2.431%, 05/01/35 (b)		160,456		169,624
2.562%, 05/01/35 (b)		1,157,884		1,228,506
2.353%, 08/01/35 (b)		2,108,267		2,221,741
2.500%, 08/01/35 (b)		1,822,547		1,921,142
1.752%, 09/01/35 (b)		4,406,122		4,528,752
2.262%, 10/01/35 (b)		1,989,611		2,086,182
2.167%, 11/01/35 (b)		551,328		573,124
2.316%, 11/01/35 (b)		1,593,810		1,675,782
2.445%, 11/01/35 (b)		835,509		883,941
5.372%, 01/01/36 (b)		685,294		737,826
1.995%, 08/01/36 (b)		1,021,026		1,075,320
4.527%, 12/01/36 (b)		771,289		811,284
1.418%, 08/01/41 (b)		682,368		687,029
1.468%, 09/01/41 (b)		1,975,247		2,007,643
1.418%, 07/01/42 (b)		661,520		665,123
1.418%, 08/01/42 (b)		612,622		616,365
1.418%, 10/01/44 (b)		1,042,361		1,048,323
Fannie Mae REMICS Series 2001-46 Class F 0.685%, 09/18/31 (b)		779,348		782,249
Series 2002-21 Class FD 1.194%, due 04/25/32 (b)		297,327		301,778
Series 2006-S Class 3A2 2.381%, 05/25/35 (b)		3,154,982		3,302,337
Freddie Mac 15 Yr. Gold Pool 5.500%, 05/01/14		8,932		9,318
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed—(Continued)
6.000%, 06/01/14		9,747	$	10,572
6.000%, 10/01/14		5,442		5,903
6.000%, 03/01/15		445		483
5.500%, 04/01/16		7,773		8,421
5.500%, 09/01/19		1,070,234		1,162,807
Freddie Mac 20 Yr. Gold Pool 6.000%, 03/01/21		172,800		189,897
5.500%, 04/01/21		39,147		42,506
6.000%, 01/01/22		623,642		685,346
6.000%, 10/01/22		2,181,225		2,397,038
5.500%, 12/01/22		4,113		4,466
6.000%, 12/01/22		136,539		150,049
6.000%, 02/01/23		88,797		97,861
5.500%, 03/01/23		850,413		929,505
6.000%, 04/01/23		120,387		132,674
5.500%, 08/01/26		7,637		8,319
5.500%, 06/01/27		302,997		323,609
5.500%, 12/01/27		370,889		402,602
5.500%, 01/01/28		189,727		205,949
5.500%, 05/01/28		478,062		518,938
5.500%, 06/01/28		1,308,905		1,420,822
Freddie Mac 30 Yr. Gold Pool 5.500%, 03/01/32		153,790		167,636
5.500%, 01/01/33		9,463		10,315
5.500%, 05/01/33		24,016		26,179
5.500%, 08/01/33		9,397		10,243
5.500%, 10/01/33		18,037		19,660
5.500%, 12/01/33		9,525		10,383
5.500%, 01/01/34		9,926		10,819
5.500%, 05/01/34		196,189		213,853
5.500%, 09/01/34		143,498		156,329
4.500%, 06/01/35		612,404		650,830
5.500%, 07/01/35		10,288		11,215
5.500%, 10/01/35		163,892		178,443
5.500%, 11/01/35		488,385		531,746
5.500%, 12/01/35		192,199		209,264
5.500%, 01/01/36		490,454		534,229
5.500%, 02/01/36		207,212		225,868
5.500%, 04/01/36		204,535		222,056
5.500%, 06/01/36		12,042,834		13,119,588
5.500%, 07/01/36		407,093		442,791
5.500%, 08/01/36		586,547		637,982
5.500%, 10/01/36		144,367		157,455
5.500%, 12/01/36		3,426,283		3,726,739
5.500%, 02/01/37		486,506		528,642
5.500%, 03/01/37		103,798		113,598

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed—(Continued)
5.500%, 04/01/37		455,469	$	495,766
5.500%, 06/01/37		741,899		806,145
5.500%, 07/01/37		3,497,048		3,802,220
5.500%, 08/01/37		738,864		807,312
5.500%, 09/01/37		361,783		393,898
5.500%, 10/01/37		111,703		121,376
5.500%, 11/01/37		3,112,079		3,382,432
5.500%, 12/01/37		242,659		263,672
5.500%, 01/01/38		1,089,640		1,184,000
5.500%, 02/01/38		3,136,165		3,407,748
5.500%, 03/01/38		1,016,100		1,104,524
5.500%, 04/01/38		1,206,234		1,312,413
5.500%, 05/01/38		1,026,351		1,115,230
5.500%, 06/01/38		2,924,851		3,178,137
5.500%, 07/01/38		5,426,719		5,896,660
5.500%, 08/01/38		2,375,559		2,581,277
4.500%, 09/01/38		725,148		769,516
5.500%, 09/01/38		1,574,317		1,710,650
5.500%, 10/01/38		3,753,741		4,079,364
5.500%, 11/01/38		624,235		678,292
5.500%, 12/01/38		37,262		40,641
5.500%, 01/01/39		9,750,853		10,595,587
4.500%, 02/01/39		2,830,350		3,002,640
5.500%, 02/01/39		880,734		957,081
5.500%, 09/01/39		315,974		343,534
4.500%, 10/01/39		466,768		495,181
5.500%, 12/01/39		155,214		168,752
5.500%, 02/01/40		1,196,273		1,299,720
4.500%, 04/01/40		3,532,262		3,746,174
4.500%, 08/01/40		266,577		282,721
4.500%, 09/01/40		33,072		35,075
4.500%, 10/01/40		467,689		496,012
4.500%, 12/01/40		57,933		61,442
5.500%, 02/01/41		255,237		277,180
4.500%, 04/01/41		44,103,595		46,764,146
4.500%, 05/01/41		12,593,608		13,353,318
4.500%, 06/01/41		461,484		489,323
4.500%, 09/01/41		1,927,483		2,043,759
4.500%, 10/01/41		348,185		369,190
4.000%, 11/01/41		1,497,391		1,575,340
4.000%, TBA (a)		35,000,000		36,717,187
5.500%, TBA (a)		143,000,000		155,177,379
Freddie Mac 30 Yr. Pool 5.500%, 01/01/35		242,364		264,034
Freddie Mac ARM Non-Gold Pool 2.612%, 01/01/29 (b)		1,025,086		1,087,767
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed—(Continued)
2.375%, 11/01/31 (b)		53,070	$	55,765
2.711%, 08/01/32 (b)		226,251		240,057
2.232%, 10/01/34 (b)		134,765		141,999
2.375%, 11/01/34 (b)		269,502		282,222
2.651%, 11/01/34 (b)		74,782		79,364
2.657%, 11/01/34 (b)		128,955		136,715
2.744%, 11/01/34 (b)		97,411		103,177
2.434%, 01/01/35 (b)		136,687		143,135
2.496%, 01/01/35 (b)		606,801		631,652
2.353%, 02/01/35 (b)		138,692		144,329
2.375%, 02/01/35 (b)		159,323		167,496
2.377%, 02/01/35 (b)		112,329		118,084
2.392%, 02/01/35 (b)		83,010		87,432
2.430%, 02/01/35 (b)		142,391		149,267
2.490%, 02/01/35 (b)		267,212		282,622
2.652%, 02/01/35 (b)		139,967		146,784
5.198%, 03/01/35 (b)		1,104,007		1,184,111
2.474%, 06/01/35 (b)		3,390,546		3,578,348
2.477%, 08/01/35 (b)		1,728,456		1,825,014
2.095%, 09/01/35 (b)		547,330		570,112
2.378%, 09/01/35 (b)		1,734,062		1,818,505
Freddie Mac REMICS Series 1609 Class 1A 1.875%, 11/15/23 (b)		1,161,966		1,204,578
Series 1650 Class K 6.500%, 01/15/24		77,477		87,996
Series 2495 Class PD 5.500%, 03/15/17		18,329		18,326
Series 2495 Class W 3.500%, 07/15/32		135,136		139,789
Series 2820 Class FY
0.528%, 07/15/34 (b)		313,587		313,363
Freddie Mac Structured Pass-Through Securities Series T-61 Class 1A1 1.609%, 07/25/44 (b)		10,685,800		10,896,660
Series T-62 Class 1A1 1.399%, 10/25/44 (b)		2,065,484		2,021,557
Series T-63 Class 1A1 1.418%, 02/25/45 (b)		183,050		174,994
Ginnie Mae I 15 Yr. Pool 6.000%, 04/15/14		20,885		22,832
Ginnie Mae I 30 Yr. Pool 7.000%, 10/15/23		23,672		27,338
7.500%, 01/15/26		17,335		20,397
7.500%, 04/15/31		5,675,756		5,904,009

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed—(Continued)
Ginnie Mae II 30 Yr. Pool 3.500%, 01/20/41		962,568	$	1,003,928
Ginnie Mae II ARM Pool 2.375%, 02/20/22 (b)		20,873		21,588
2.375%, 04/20/22 (b)		2,624		2,716
2.375%, 01/20/23 (b)		38,954		40,287
2.125%, 01/20/26 (b)		17,527		18,074
2.375%, 02/20/26 (b)		18,914		19,562
2.375%, 05/20/26 (b)		28,217		29,211
2.500%, 11/20/26 (b)		18,691		19,393
2.375%, 01/20/27 (b)		10,992		11,368
2.375%, 02/20/27 (b)		12,790		13,228
2.375%, 06/20/27 (b)		10,376		10,742
1.625%, 08/20/27 (b)		111,963		115,207
1.625%, 09/20/27 (b)		90,465		93,086
2.125%, 11/20/27 (b)		30,065		31,002
2.250%, 02/20/28 (b)		22,411		23,145
2.250%, 03/20/28 (b)		23,510		24,280
2.375%, 05/20/28 (b)		11,318		11,717
2.125%, 10/20/28 (b)		22,961		23,677
2.375%, 04/20/29 (b)		15,472		16,018
2.875%, 04/20/29 (b)		18,152		18,907
2.375%, 05/20/29 (b)		15,615		16,165
1.625%, 07/20/29 (b)		17,925		18,445
1.625%, 08/20/29 (b)		17,101		17,596
1.625%, 09/20/29 (b)		21,974		22,610
2.125%, 10/20/29 (b)		15,278		15,755
2.250%, 01/20/30 (b)		66,650		68,834
2.375%, 04/20/30 (b)		39,719		41,119
2.375%, 05/20/30 (b)		54,099		56,006
2.375%, 06/20/30 (b)		22,927		23,735
2.500%, 10/20/30 (b)		6,321		6,559
2.125%, 11/20/30 (b)		89,545		92,338
2.375%, 04/20/31 (b)		25,262		26,152
1.625%, 08/20/31 (b)		6,753		6,949
2.500%, 10/20/31 (b)		7,126		7,397
1.750%, 03/20/32 (b)		1,186		1,229
2.375%, 04/20/32 (b)		3,130		3,241
2.500%, 04/20/32 (b)		11,665		12,087
2.375%, 05/20/32 (b)		32,982		34,145
1.625%, 07/20/32 (b)		16,715		17,200
2.000%, 03/20/33 (b)		11,387		11,746
1.625%, 09/20/33 (b)		122,209		125,750
				4,716,820,720
Federal Agencies—0.3%
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. 2.500%, 05/27/16		8,400,000	$	8,905,529
2.000%, 08/25/16		8,400,000		8,744,568
4.875%, 06/13/18		9,100,000		10,980,297
Government National Mortgage Association Series 2000-9 Class FH 0.783%, 02/16/30 (b)		26,226		26,342
Series 2002-31 Class F 0.583%, 01/16/31 (b)		66,951		67,097
				28,723,833
U.S. Treasury—25.2%
U.S. Treasury Inflation Indexed Bonds 1.250%, 07/15/20		10,694,387		12,106,378
1.125%, 01/15/21		11,696,856		13,055,703
0.625%, 07/15/21		2,511,675		2,689,258
2.375%, 01/15/25		12,012,700		15,288,035
2.000%, 01/15/26		39,474,102		48,571,659
2.375%, 01/15/27††		49,517,244		64,012,625
1.750%, 01/15/28		15,996,728		19,257,309
3.625%, 04/15/28		9,380,000		13,958,613
2.500%, 01/15/29††		40,815,342		54,542,684
3.875%, 04/15/29		2,892,540		4,515,301
U.S. Treasury Notes 0.250%, 12/15/14 (i)		72,600,000		72,373,125
0.875%, 12/31/16		82,300,000		82,460,732
3.000%, 02/28/17		1,000,000		1,106,094
1.500%, 08/31/18†† (i)		577,100,000		585,621,459
1.375%, 11/30/18 (i)		282,400,000		283,414,946
1.375%, 12/31/18		67,100,000		67,236,280
3.375%, 11/15/19		8,600,000		9,804,671
3.625%, 02/15/20		76,100,000		88,270,064
3.500%, 05/15/20		51,300,000		59,023,061
2.625%, 08/15/20		137,600,000		148,425,267
2.625%, 11/15/20		144,500,000		155,585,895
3.625%, 02/15/21†† (i)		527,700,000		612,750,464
2.125%, 08/15/21 (h)		12,400,000		12,719,684
2.000%, 11/15/21		39,100,000		39,552,113
				2,466,341,420
Total U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies (Cost $7,127,526,853)				7,211,885,973

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—26.5%

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Capital Markets—1.0%
Deutsche Bank AG London 6.000%, 09/01/17		25,700,000	$	28,736,301
Scotland International Finance No. 2 B.V. 4.250%, 05/23/13 (144A)		19,800,000		17,627,623
UBS AG 1.425%, 01/28/14 (b)		2,200,000		2,143,665
Series BKNT 2.250%, 08/12/13		14,900,000		14,772,948
5.875%, 12/20/17		21,700,000		22,619,060
Series MTN 1.595%, 02/23/12 (b)		7,400,000		7,409,383
				93,308,980
Chemicals—0.0%
Braskem Finance, Ltd. 5.750%, 04/15/21 (144A)		3,300,000		3,308,250
Commercial Banks—7.9%
ABN Amro Bank N.V. 3.000%, 04/17/12 (EUR)		1,600,000		2,087,869
ANZ National International, Ltd. 3.125%, 08/10/15 (144A)		8,700,000		8,705,055
Australia & New Zealand Banking Group, Ltd. 2.125%, 01/10/14 (144A)		17,100,000		17,092,254
Banco Santander Brazil S.A. 2.659%, 03/18/14 (144A)(b)		20,800,000		19,828,370
4.250%, 01/14/16 (144A)		14,800,000		14,134,000
Banco Santander Chile 2.006%, 01/19/16 (144A)(b)		6,900,000		6,417,000
Bank of China (Hong Kong), Ltd. 5.550%, 02/11/20 (144A)		2,500,000		2,599,330
Bank of India Series EMTN 4.750%, 09/30/15		5,100,000		4,929,935
Bank of Montreal Series CB2 2.850%, 06/09/15 (144A)		5,600,000		5,809,462
Bank of Nova Scotia 1.650%, 10/29/15 (144A)		6,100,000		6,098,207
Barclays Bank plc 5.450%, 09/12/12		39,300,000		40,156,111
2.375%, 01/13/14		6,300,000		6,169,294
5.000%, 09/22/16		26,400,000		27,370,147
0.746%, 03/23/17 (b)		1,500,000		1,372,583
Commercial Banks—(Continued)
6.050%, 12/04/17 (144A)		44,400,000	$	40,342,861
10.179%, 06/12/21 (144A)		18,080,000		19,203,491
Series EMTN 6.000%, 01/23/18 (EUR)		15,000,000		17,513,040
BBVA Bancomer S.A. 4.500%, 03/10/16 (144A)		3,900,000		3,841,500
6.500%, 03/10/21 (144A)		7,800,000		7,556,250
BNP Paribas S.A. Series BKNT 1.291%, 01/10/14 (b)		26,000,000		23,992,956
BPCE S.A. 2.375%, 10/04/13 (144A)		2,400,000		2,325,502
Credit Agricole S.A. 8.375%, 10/13/19 (144A)(b)		46,000,000		34,730,000
Credit Suisse of New York 2.200%, 01/14/14		5,700,000		5,639,996
Danske Bank A.S. 2.500%, 05/10/12 (144A)		4,500,000		4,528,706
Dexia Credit Local S.A. 0.908%, 04/29/14 (144A)(b)		1,200,000		1,089,382
Export-Import Bank of Korea 1.050%, 03/03/12 (144A)(SGD)		18,300,000		14,128,634
5.125%, 06/29/20		4,300,000		4,523,828
4.000%, 01/29/21		2,700,000		2,619,070
HBOS Capital Funding L.P. 6.071%, 06/30/14 (144A)(b)		45,000		28,350
HSBC Bank plc 2.000%, 01/19/14 (144A)		6,000,000		5,912,742
HSBC Capital Funding L.P. 4.610%, 12/31/49 (144A)(b)		585,000		539,365
ING Bank N.V. 1.379%, 03/30/12 (144A)(b)		66,800,000		66,643,154
2.650%, 01/14/13 (144A)		1,500,000		1,503,101
2.000%, 10/18/13 (144A)		3,300,000		3,224,546
Intesa Sanpaolo 2.906%, 02/24/14 (144A)(b)		14,100,000		12,421,846
Intesa Sanpaolo/New York, Series YCD 2.375%, 12/21/12		45,500,000		42,335,065
Kreditanstalt fuer Wiederaufbau 2.000%, 09/07/16 (EUR)		13,900,000		18,354,424
LeasePlan Corp. N.V. 3.125%, 02/10/12 (EUR)		7,700,000		10,013,053

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Commercial Banks—(Continued)
Lloyds TSB Bank plc 4.875%, 01/21/16		7,400,000	$	7,218,448
12.000%, 12/16/24 (144A)(b)		5,800,000		5,320,816
Mizuho Financial Group Cayman, Ltd. 5.790%, 04/15/14 (144A)		315,000		336,258
Nordea Bank AB 2.125%, 01/14/14 (144A)		2,700,000		2,649,313
Rabobank Nederland 11.000%, 06/30/19 (144A)(b)		277,000		325,507
Realkredit Danmark A.S. Series 73D 2.440%, 01/01/38 (DKK)(b)		22,501,368		3,816,620
Series 83D 2.440%, 01/01/38 (DKK)(b)		96,836,807		16,560,377
Resona Bank, Ltd. 5.850%, 04/15/16 (144A)(b)		4,400,000		4,375,593
Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc 7.640%, 09/29/17		14,500,000		7,848,125
6.990%, 10/05/17 (144A)		2,000,000		1,262,500
Royal Bank of Scotland plc (The) 3.950%, 09/21/15		12,300,000		11,543,525
Series EMTN 1.316%, 09/29/15 (b)		500,000		360,533
1.181%, 10/14/16 (b)		500,000		346,000
Series MPLE 2.001%, 03/30/15 (CAD)(b)		7,763,000		6,089,624
Santander Finance Preferred S.A. Unipersonal Series 8 11.300%, 12/31/49 (GBP)(b)		7,900,000		10,653,004
Santander Issuances S.A. Unipersonal Series 24 7.300%, 07/27/19 (GBP)(b)		5,000,000		6,486,336
Santander US Debt S.A. Unipersonal 2.991%, 10/07/13 (144A)		24,300,000		23,240,860
Societe Financement de l’Economie Francaise 0.603%, 07/16/12 (144A)(b)		57,000,000		57,131,670
Societe Generale S.A. 5.922%, 04/05/17 (144A)(b)		13,200,000		8,042,734
8.875%, 06/16/18 (GBP)(b)		5,000,000		4,816,005
Commercial Banks—(Continued)
Standard Chartered First Bank Korea, Ltd. 7.267%, 03/03/34 (144A)(b)		240,000	$	245,400
State Bank of India 4.500%, 07/27/15 (144A)		12,200,000		12,076,719
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. 1.950%, 01/14/14 (144A)		7,400,000		7,490,435
Svenska Handelsbanken AB 1.544%, 09/14/12 (144A)(b)		34,000,000		34,164,832
Turkiye Garanti Bankasi A.S. 2.909%, 04/20/16 (144A)(b)		3,800,000		3,458,000
United Overseas Bank, Ltd. 5.375%, 09/03/19 (144A)(b)		470,000		496,992
Westpac Banking Corp. 0.883%, 07/16/14 (144A)(b)		29,000,000		29,334,341
Woori Bank 6.025%, 03/13/14 (144A)(b)		305,000		288,988
				771,760,034
Commercial Services & Supplies—0.6%
Canada Housing Trust No. 1 3.750%, 03/15/20 (144A)(CAD)		25,700,000		28,134,657
3.350%, 12/15/20 (144A)(CAD)		17,700,000		18,816,988
2.650%, 03/15/22 (144A)(CAD)		1,400,000		1,395,979
Series AUG 3.800%, 06/15/21 (144A)(CAD)		11,200,000		12,310,803
				60,658,427
Construction Materials—0.0%
C8 Capital SPV, Ltd. 6.640%, 12/31/14 (144A)(b)		1,500,000		825,000
Consumer Finance—0.2%
Banque PSA Finance 2.481%, 04/04/14 (144A)(b)		14,900,000		13,806,757
FCE Bank plc Series EMTN 7.125%, 01/15/13 (EUR)		4,000,000		5,305,343
GMAC International Finance B.V. 7.500%, 04/21/15 (EUR)		2,800,000		3,432,258
Sydney Airport Finance Co. Pty, Ltd. 5.125%, 02/22/21 (144A)		1,300,000		1,321,444
				23,865,802

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Diversified Financial Services—0.7%
Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Economico e Social 4.125%, 09/15/17 (144A)(EUR)		2,700,000	$	3,434,009
BM&F BOVESPA S.A. 5.500%, 07/16/20 (144A)		1,000,000		1,035,000
Instituto de Credito Oficial 3.154%, 03/25/14 (EUR)(b)		19,200,000		23,277,168
LBG Capital No.1 plc 7.875%, 11/01/20 (144A)		285,000		218,880
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. Series B 2.600%, 01/20/12 (144A)		2,200,000		2,200,042
Nationwide Building Society 6.250%, 02/25/20 (144A)		10,800,000		10,732,435
Pearson Dollar Finance plc 5.700%, 06/01/14 (144A)		13,500,000		14,743,242
Temasek Financial I, Ltd. 4.300%, 10/25/19 (144A)		5,500,000		5,931,360
Trans Capital Investment, Ltd. 8.700%, 08/07/18 (144A)		2,800,000		3,383,660
				64,955,796
Diversified Telecommunication Services—0.0%
Deutsche Telekom International Finance B.V. 5.250%, 07/22/13		425,000		446,801
8.750%, 06/15/30		50,000		69,930
France Telecom S.A. 8.500%, 03/01/31		165,000		235,925
Qtel International Finance, Ltd. 3.375%, 10/14/16 (144A)		400,000		405,000
4.750%, 02/16/21 (144A)		800,000		810,000
				1,967,656
Electric Utilities—1.0%
Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras S.A. 6.875%, 07/30/19 (144A)		54,400,000		62,016,000
Electricite de France 5.500%, 01/26/14 (144A)		5,100,000		5,449,299
6.500%, 01/26/19 (144A)		5,100,000		5,777,550
6.950%, 01/26/39 (144A)		4,700,000		5,549,816
Enel Finance International S.A. 6.250%, 09/15/17 (144A)		9,350,000		8,934,131
Electric Utilities—(Continued)
Majapahit Holding B.V. 7.250%, 06/28/17		2,040,000	$	2,287,248
7.750%, 01/20/20		5,000,000		5,831,250
				95,845,294
Energy Equipment & Services—0.0%
Transocean, Inc. 7.500%, 04/15/31		1,000,000		1,040,536
Gas Utilities—0.0%
ENN Energy Holdings, Ltd. 6.000%, 05/13/21 (144A)		1,600,000		1,447,314
UFJ Finance Aruba AEC 6.750%, 07/15/13		220,000		235,168
				1,682,482
Household Durables—0.0%
Korea Housing Finance Corp. 4.125%, 12/15/15 (144A)		2,500,000		2,594,010
Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders—0.1%
Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co., Ltd. 3.125%, 09/16/15 (144A)		11,200,000		11,270,067
Industrial Conglomerates—0.0%
Hutchison Whampoa International, Ltd. 6.250%, 01/24/14 (144A)		245,000		264,668
Insurance—0.1%
AXA S.A. 8.600%, 12/15/30		60,000		59,229
Dai-ichi Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (The) 7.250%, 07/25/21 (144A) (b) (h)		7,400,000		7,461,835
				7,521,064
Media—0.2%
British Sky Broadcasting Group plc 6.100%, 02/15/18 (144A)		15,000,000		16,824,030
Metals & Mining—0.2%
AngloGold Ashanti Holdings plc 5.375%, 04/15/20		2,400,000		2,388,235
Gerdau Trade, Inc. 5.750%, 01/30/21 (144A)		6,900,000		6,882,750

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Metals & Mining—(Continued)
Vale Overseas, Ltd. 6.875%, 11/21/36		8,200,000	$	9,377,118
6.875%, 11/10/39		3,600,000		4,141,440
				22,789,543
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—1.0%
Gazprom OAO Via Gaz Capital S.A. 8.146%, 04/11/18 (144A)		12,400,000		14,012,000
8.625%, 04/28/34		23,300,000		27,552,250
Series REGS 8.125%, 07/31/14		3,600,000		3,897,000
Gazprom OAO Via RBS AG 9.625%, 03/01/13 (144A)		130,000		138,775
Husky Energy, Inc. 6.150%, 06/15/19		215,000		246,030
Indian Oil Corp., Ltd. 4.750%, 01/22/15		2,200,000		2,215,488
Novatek Finance, Ltd. 5.326%, 02/03/16 (144A)		3,100,000		3,138,750
Petrobras International Finance Co. 5.750%, 01/20/20		4,800,000		5,160,576
5.375%, 01/27/21		26,600,000		28,078,987
Ras Laffan Liquefied Natural Gas Co., Ltd. III Series REGS 5.940%, 09/30/14		1,400,000		1,505,000
Total Capital S.A. 4.450%, 06/24/20		3,100,000		3,459,116
TransCanada Pipelines, Ltd. 7.625%, 01/15/39		2,500,000		3,618,085
				93,022,057
Provincial—1.7%
Province of British Columbia 3.250%, 12/18/21 (CAD)		300,000		305,850
4.300%, 06/18/42 (CAD)		400,000		462,943
Province of Ontario 1.375%, 01/27/14		11,000,000		11,120,824
1.875%, 09/15/15		1,900,000		1,937,432
1.600%, 09/21/16		400,000		399,220
4.300%, 03/08/17 (CAD)		9,200,000		10,127,283
4.200%, 03/08/18 (CAD)		2,200,000		2,422,910
5.500%, 06/02/18 (CAD)		2,600,000		3,057,637
3.000%, 07/16/18		3,900,000		4,107,854
4.400%, 06/02/19 (CAD)		9,100,000		10,143,746
4.400%, 04/14/20		700,000		798,983
Provincial—(Continued)
4.200%, 06/02/20 (CAD)		13,200,000	$	14,499,555
4.000%, 06/02/21 (CAD)		56,800,000		61,345,788
3.150%, 06/02/22 (CAD)		6,200,000		6,220,304
Series MTN 4.600%, 06/02/39 (CAD)		4,600,000		5,461,055
Province of Quebec 4.500%, 12/01/16 (CAD)		400,000		442,838
4.500%, 12/01/17 (CAD)		4,700,000		5,242,544
4.500%, 12/01/19 (CAD)		1,200,000		1,340,221
3.500%, 07/29/20		200,000		214,572
4.500%, 12/01/20 (CAD)		2,800,000		3,120,106
4.250%, 12/01/21 (CAD)		16,200,000		17,706,806
3.500%, 12/01/22 (CAD)		600,000		613,772
Series MTN 4.500%, 12/01/18 (CAD)		5,400,000		6,039,440
				167,131,683
Real Estate Management & Development—0.0%
Qatari Diar Finance QSC 3.500%, 07/21/15		1,000,000		1,036,810
Road & Rail—0.0%
RZD Capital, Ltd. Series EMTN 5.739%, 04/03/17		3,200,000		3,232,000
Sovereign—11.6%
Brazil Notas do Tesouro Nacional Series F 10.000%, 01/01/12 (BRL)		826,800		4,129,683
10.000%, 01/01/13 (BRL)		6,952,000		3,725,213
10.000%, 01/01/14 (BRL)		698,000		3,706,287
10.000%, 01/01/17 (BRL)		27,854,200		143,526,223
Canadian Government Bond 2.750%, 09/01/16 (CAD)		24,600,000		25,801,151
4.250%, 06/01/18 (CAD)		900,000		1,032,851
3.750%, 06/01/19 (CAD)		4,900,000		5,513,964
3.250%, 06/01/21 (CAD)		1,300,000		1,421,390
Italy Buoni Poliennali Del Tesoro Series CPI 2.100%, 09/15/16 (EUR)		828,528		933,076
2.100%, 09/15/21 (EUR)		30,604,812		29,377,675
Japan Treasury Bills Series 232 0.101%, 01/30/12 (JPY) (c)		11,710,000,000		152,087,484

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Sovereign—(Continued)
Series 233 0.101%, 02/06/12 (JPY) (c)		830,000,000	$	10,779,726
Series 234 0.101%, 02/13/12 (JPY) (c)		6,310,000,000		81,950,254
Series 236 0.097%, 02/20/12 (JPY) (c)		33,460,000,000		434,548,875
Series 238 0.101%, 02/27/12 (JPY) (c)		6,310,000,000		81,947,058
Mexican Bonos 6.000%, 06/18/15 (MXN)		70,900,000		5,203,092
Mexico Government International Bond 6.050%, 01/11/40		5,100,000		6,260,250
Panama Government International Bond 9.375%, 04/01/29		1,161,000		1,851,795
6.700%, 01/26/36		1,150,000		1,506,500
Russian Foreign Bond - Eurobond Series REGS 3.625%, 04/29/15		1,500,000		1,511,250
South Africa Government International Bond 5.875%, 05/30/22		700,000		808,500
Spain Government Bond 4.650%, 07/30/25 (EUR)		12,400,000		14,535,705
4.900%, 07/30/40 (EUR)		400,000		443,642
United Kingdom Gilt 4.750%, 12/07/30 (GBP)		2,100,000		4,232,481
4.750%, 12/07/38 (GBP)		24,300,000		50,413,042
4.250%, 09/07/39 (GBP)		21,100,000		40,370,750
4.250%, 12/07/40 (GBP)		10,800,000		20,654,138
4.250%, 12/07/46 (GBP)		1,200,000		2,339,087
				1,130,611,142
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance—0.1%
Nykredit Realkredit A.S. 2.628%, 04/01/38 (DKK) (b)		22,690,639		3,854,663
2.628%, 10/01/38 (DKK) (b)		25,162,224		4,286,608
				8,141,271
Trading Companies & Distributors—0.0%
Noble Group, Ltd. 4.875%, 08/05/15 (144A)		2,500,000		2,325,000
Wireless Telecommunication Services—0.1%
America Movil S.A.B. de C.V. 5.000%, 03/30/20		5,000,000	$	5,548,860
Total Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities (Cost $2,624,159,426)				2,591,530,462
Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—13.9%
Biotechnology—0.0%
Amgen, Inc. 1.875%, 11/15/14		2,000,000		2,027,296
Capital Markets—1.9%
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The) 0.816%, 07/22/15 (b)		5,400,000		4,730,373
1.817%, 05/23/16 (EUR) (b)		4,300,000		4,647,756
6.250%, 09/01/17		14,200,000		14,862,842
6.150%, 04/01/18		1,800,000		1,860,156
7.500%, 02/15/19		10,000,000		11,059,470
5.375%, 03/15/20		11,600,000		11,468,235
6.750%, 10/01/37		13,500,000		12,598,659
Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.
0.000%, 12/23/08 (d)		12,500,000		3,250,000
5.625%, 01/24/13 (d)		32,500,000		8,693,750
6.750%, 12/28/17 (d)		14,800,000		16,280
6.875%, 05/02/18 (d)		3,900,000		1,053,000
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. 6.500%, 07/15/18		600,000		583,006
6.875%, 11/15/18		25,900,000		25,002,953
Series C 6.400%, 08/28/17		3,100,000		3,005,236
Series MTN 0.757%, 06/05/12 (b)		1,800,000		1,765,883
6.875%, 04/25/18		23,400,000		23,100,059
Morgan Stanley Series EMTN 1.970%, 04/13/16 (EUR) (b)		300,000		315,264
Series F 0.855%, 10/18/16 (b)		3,400,000		2,731,387
5.950%, 12/28/17		48,200,000		45,978,462
SteelRiver Transmission Co. LLC 4.710%, 06/30/17 (144A)		8,421,566		8,598,671
				185,321,442

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Chemicals—0.6%
Dow Chemical Co. (The) 4.850%, 08/15/12		26,100,000	$	26,706,355
6.000%, 10/01/12		3,300,000		3,427,750
7.375%, 11/01/29		185,000		236,059
ICI Wilmington, Inc. 5.625%, 12/01/13		340,000		360,155
NGPL PipeCo LLC 7.119%, 12/15/17 (144A)		16,400,000		16,209,055
Rohm & Haas Co. 6.000%, 09/15/17		8,500,000		9,676,459
				56,615,833
Commercial Banks—0.3%
ABN AMRO N.A. Holding Capital 6.523%, 11/08/12 (144A) (b)		345,000		240,206
Bank of Montreal 1.300%, 10/31/14 (144A)		7,200,000		7,192,613
CIT Group, Inc. 7.000%, 05/01/15		889,144		892,034
7.000%, 05/01/16		1,481,907		1,483,759
7.000%, 05/01/17		2,074,669		2,077,262
Series C 5.250%, 04/01/14 (144A)		2,600,000		2,603,250
National Bank of Canada 2.200%, 10/19/16 (144A)		1,400,000		1,413,189
RBS Capital Trust II 6.425%, 01/03/34		120,000		63,000
USB Capital IX 3.500%, 02/21/12 (b)		8,125,000		5,675,638
Wachovia Bank N.A. Series MTN 0.876%, 03/15/16 (b)		6,000,000		5,376,618
Westpac Capital Trust III 5.819%, 09/30/13 (144A) (b)		80,000		77,866
Westpac Capital Trust IV 5.256%, 03/31/16 (144A) (b)		165,000		150,563
				27,245,998
Commercial Services & Supplies—0.1%
R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co. 4.950%, 04/01/14		6,200,000		6,091,500
Computers & Peripherals—0.4%
Hewlett-Packard Co. 0.786%, 05/24/13 (b)		38,300,000		37,938,678
Consumer Finance—2.1%
Ally Financial, Inc. 6.875%, 08/28/12		1,500,000	$	1,522,500
3.649%, 02/11/14 (b)		8,900,000		8,456,157
4.500%, 02/11/14		9,000,000		8,707,500
3.963%, 06/20/14 (b)		9,000,000		8,461,440
6.750%, 12/01/14		9,458,000		9,546,763
8.300%, 02/12/15		3,500,000		3,701,250
7.500%, 09/15/20		7,800,000		7,907,250
American Express Bank FSB S.A. 5.500%, 04/16/13		16,700,000		17,461,169
6.000%, 09/13/17		34,000,000		38,569,634
American Express Centurion Bank 6.000%, 09/13/17		34,000,000		38,494,392
Ford Motor Credit Co. LLC 3.148%, 01/13/12 (b)		9,000,000		9,016,470
7.000%, 10/01/13		500,000		531,416
8.000%, 06/01/14		2,500,000		2,722,667
7.000%, 04/15/15		900,000		969,750
12.000%, 05/15/15		4,000,000		4,929,960
8.000%, 12/15/16		500,000		568,555
5.875%, 08/02/21		400,000		417,647
SLM Corp. 5.368%, 03/15/12 (b)		1,500,000		1,502,415
5.125%, 08/27/12		400,000		402,104
5.375%, 01/15/13		700,000		705,005
5.000%, 10/01/13		3,839,000		3,848,597
0.718%, 01/27/14 (b)		11,600,000		10,491,527
5.375%, 05/15/14		8,235,000		8,245,294
Series MTN 6.250%, 01/25/16		3,200,000		3,114,669
8.450%, 06/15/18		8,300,000		8,590,500
8.000%, 03/25/20		400,000		405,000
Springleaf Finance Corp. Series J 6.900%, 12/15/17		3,200,000		2,320,000
Series MTNI 4.875%, 07/15/12		800,000		770,000
				202,379,631
Diversified Financial Services—3.8%
ANZ Capital Trust II 5.360%, 12/15/13 (144A)		525,000		521,063
Bank of America Corp. 6.000%, 09/01/17		620,000		606,224
5.650%, 05/01/18		17,800,000		16,981,111

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Diversified Financial Services—(Continued)
Bear Stearns Cos. LLC (The) 6.400%, 10/02/17		19,300,000	$	21,588,690
7.250%, 02/01/18		5,000,000		5,869,105
Citigroup Capital XXI 8.300%, 12/21/57 (b)		35,900,000		35,944,875
Citigroup, Inc. 5.625%, 08/27/12		1,000,000		1,015,265
5.500%, 04/11/13		17,900,000		18,280,106
2.453%, 08/13/13 (b)		7,000,000		6,873,909
5.500%, 10/15/14		35,000,000		36,004,710
6.125%, 11/21/17		44,600,000		47,657,330
6.125%, 05/15/18		2,900,000		3,090,707
8.500%, 05/22/19		3,800,000		4,479,231
General Electric Capital Corp. 6.750%, 03/15/32		165,000		193,771
6.875%, 01/10/39		6,500,000		7,813,396
6.500%, 09/15/67 (144A) (GBP) (b)		11,900,000		15,991,468
6.375%, 11/15/67 (b)		5,400,000		5,332,500
International Lease Finance Corp. 5.400%, 02/15/12		16,642,000		16,683,605
5.300%, 05/01/12		24,700,000		24,761,750
5.250%, 01/10/13		2,900,000		2,885,500
6.375%, 03/25/13		2,900,000		2,900,000
5.875%, 05/01/13		1,600,000		1,584,000
6.750%, 09/01/16 (144A)		5,300,000		5,459,000
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 0.872%, 06/13/16 (b)		5,300,000		4,748,456
3.150%, 07/05/16		8,200,000		8,246,970
6.000%, 10/01/17		23,600,000		25,417,554
6.000%, 01/15/18		25,600,000		28,597,888
JPMorgan Chase Capital XXI Series U 1.379%, 02/02/37 (b)		27,300,000		19,525,096
TECO Finance, Inc. 6.750%, 05/01/15		4,400,000		4,938,534
				373,991,814
Diversified Telecommunication Services—0.3%
AT&T, Inc. 5.100%, 09/15/14		380,000		418,816
5.625%, 06/15/16		455,000		522,482
6.300%, 01/15/38		6,400,000		7,885,107
5.350%, 09/01/40		301,000		339,902
CenturyLink, Inc. 6.000%, 04/01/17		5,000,000		5,074,985
Diversified Telecommunication Services—(Continued)
Embarq Corp. 7.995%, 06/01/36		6,600,000	$	6,857,492
Sprint Capital Corp. 8.750%, 03/15/32		6,900,000		5,614,875
Verizon New York, Inc. 7.375%, 04/01/32		155,000		180,994
				26,894,653
Electric Utilities—0.2%
Arizona Public Service Co. 4.650%, 05/15/15		165,000		180,489
Consumers Energy Co. 5.000%, 02/15/12		2,500,000		2,511,720
Entergy Corp. 3.625%, 09/15/15		14,300,000		14,528,328
Nisource Finance Corp. 6.150%, 03/01/13		216,000		226,906
Pepco Holdings, Inc. 7.450%, 08/15/32		180,000		223,230
Progress Energy, Inc. 6.850%, 04/15/12		650,000		661,050
				18,331,723
Energy Equipment & Services—0.1%
Cameron International Corp. 1.459%, 06/02/14 (b)		9,100,000		9,142,661
Food & Staples Retailing—0.1%
CVS Pass-Through Trust 6.943%, 01/10/30		1,004,775		1,116,651
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 5.800%, 02/15/18		6,600,000		8,101,209
				9,217,860
Food Products—0.3%
Kraft Foods, Inc. 6.125%, 02/01/18		23,500,000		27,581,433
6.875%, 02/01/38		2,100,000		2,790,409
				30,371,842
Health Care Providers & Services—0.2%
UnitedHealth Group, Inc. 6.000%, 02/15/18		11,100,000		13,214,739
6.875%, 02/15/38		2,200,000		2,960,641
				16,175,380

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders—0.0%
PSEG Power LLC 5.500%, 12/01/15		420,000	$	467,241
8.625%, 04/15/31		245,000		362,415
				829,656
Insurance—1.2%
American General Institutional Capital Series B 8.125%, 03/15/46 (144A)		24,700,000		22,477,000
American International Group, Inc. 4.250%, 05/15/13		8,545,000		8,541,847
5.050%, 10/01/15		6,300,000		6,106,130
5.450%, 05/18/17		700,000		670,478
6.765%, 11/15/17 (144A)(GBP)		2,639,000		3,874,329
5.850%, 01/16/18		23,700,000		23,236,997
8.250%, 08/15/18		300,000		318,360
5.250%/6.250%, 11/16/22 (e)		3,163,000		2,973,220
8.000%, 05/22/38 (EUR) (b)		2,750,000		2,853,730
8.625%, 05/22/38 (GBP) (b)		2,600,000		3,231,384
Series EMTN 5.000%, 06/26/17 (EUR)		24,000,000		27,682,338
CNA Financial Corp. 5.850%, 12/15/14		5,000,000		5,272,130
Liberty Mutual Group, Inc. 5.750%, 03/15/14 (144A)		5,750,000		6,000,159
Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. 5.900%, 07/01/12		60,000		60,699
Pacific LifeCorp. 6.000%, 02/10/20 (144A)		2,600,000		2,771,642
Principal Life Income Funding Trusts 5.300%, 04/24/13		3,400,000		3,568,334
Prudential Holding LLC 8.695%, 12/18/23 (144A)		150,000		188,827
				119,827,604
IT Services—0.2%
International Business Machines Corp. 5.700%, 09/14/17		19,300,000		23,399,050
Machinery—0.3%
Caterpillar, Inc. 0.649%, 05/21/13 (b)		33,000,000		33,056,661
Media—0.1%
Comcast Corp. 7.050%, 03/15/33		75,000	$	95,074
COX Communications, Inc. 4.625%, 06/01/13		430,000		453,446
Historic TW, Inc. 9.150%, 02/01/23		155,000		212,422
News America Holdings, Inc. 8.250%, 08/10/18		110,000		139,449
7.750%, 01/20/24		25,000		30,963
Time Warner Cable, Inc. 5.400%, 07/02/12		5,000,000		5,113,370
Time Warner Entertainment Co. L.P. 8.375%, 03/15/23		260,000		339,285
Time Warner, Inc. 5.875%, 11/15/16		6,500,000		7,510,529
7.625%, 04/15/31		310,000		401,294
				14,295,832
Multi-Utilities—0.0%
Dominion Resources, Inc. 6.300%, 03/15/33		210,000		263,309
DTE Energy Co. 6.375%, 04/15/33		260,000		315,813
				579,122
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—0.1%
El Paso Corp. 7.750%, 01/15/32		2,715,000		3,149,400
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners L.P. 7.400%, 03/15/31		225,000		269,590
7.750%, 03/15/32		135,000		167,762
7.300%, 08/15/33		90,000		105,405
Magellan Midstream Partners 5.650%, 10/15/16		385,000		440,001
Spectra Energy Capital LLC 6.250%, 02/15/13		375,000		393,244
8.000%, 10/01/19		55,000		69,317
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. 8.875%, 07/15/12		35,000		36,411
Valero Energy Corp. 7.500%, 04/15/32		225,000		263,995
Williams Cos., Inc. (The) 7.500%, 01/15/31		366,000		447,297
				5,342,422

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Paper & Forest Products—0.1%
International Paper Co. 5.250%, 04/01/16		6,500,000	$	7,069,205
Pharmaceuticals—0.7%
GlaxoSmithKline Capital, Inc. 4.850%, 05/15/13		49,400,000		52,298,792
Teva Pharmaceutical Finance Co. B.V. 1.344%, 11/08/13 (b)		8,000,000		8,036,776
Wyeth 5.500%, 02/15/16		5,000,000		5,820,365
6.450%, 02/01/24		160,000		209,519
				66,365,452
Real Estate Investment Trust—0.1%
HCP, Inc. 6.700%, 01/30/18		7,500,000		8,347,680
Road & Rail—0.2%
Con-way, Inc. 7.250%, 01/15/18		10,000,000		11,281,800
CSX Corp. 6.250%, 03/15/18		8,100,000		9,654,973
Norfolk Southern Corp. 5.590%, 05/17/25		60,000		69,477
7.800%, 05/15/27		7,000		9,931
5.640%, 05/17/29		168,000		207,302
7.250%, 02/15/31		54,000		75,149
4.837%, 10/01/41 (144A)		11,000		11,718
Union Pacific Corp. 6.625%, 02/01/29		50,000		65,838
				21,376,188
Specialty Retail—0.2%
Home Depot, Inc. (The) 5.400%, 03/01/16		5,000,000		5,780,305
Limited Brands, Inc. 6.900%, 07/15/17		15,000,000		16,237,500
				22,017,805
Tobacco—0.2%
Altria Group, Inc. 9.700%, 11/10/18		7,600,000		10,238,750
Philip Morris International, Inc. 6.375%, 05/16/38		4,100,000		5,364,407
Reynolds American, Inc. 7.625%, 06/01/16		2,400,000		2,864,585
				18,467,742
Trading Companies & Distributors—0.1%
GATX Corp. 6.000%, 02/15/18		5,000,000	$	5,552,255
GATX Financial Corp. 5.800%, 03/01/16		5,000,000		5,285,795
				10,838,050
Total Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities (Cost $1,341,485,615)				1,353,558,780
Mortgage-Backed Securities—4.4%
Collateralized-Mortgage Obligations—2.8%
Adjustable Rate Mortgage Trust Series 2005-1 Class 2A21 2.766%, 05/25/35 (b)		380,750		366,575
Series 2005-8 Class 3A21 5.188%, 11/25/35 (b)		1,037,147		694,330
American Home Mortgage Assets Series 2006-5 Class A1 1.128%, 11/25/46 (b)		5,423,833		1,994,257
American Home Mortgage Investment Trust Series 2004-4 Class 4A 2.294%, 02/25/45 (b)		2,698,965		1,996,613
Arran Residential Mortgages Funding plc Series 2010-1A Class A1B 2.659%, 05/16/47 (144A)(EUR) (b)		3,126,873		4,050,624
Series 2010-1A Class A2B 2.859%, 05/16/47 (144A)(EUR) (b)		13,300,000		17,148,752
Banc of America Funding Corp. Series 2005-D Class A1 2.695%, 05/25/35 (b)		4,190,047		4,090,422
Series 2006-A Class 1A1 2.657%, 02/20/36 (b)		9,642,572		8,043,641
Series 2006-J Class 4A1 5.743%, 01/20/47 (b)		598,646		380,014
Banc of America Mortgage Securities, Inc. Series 2004-4 Class 1A9 5.000%, 05/25/34		150,643		150,798
BCAP LLC Trust Series 2006-AA2 Class A1 0.464%, 01/25/37 (b)		3,636,543		1,682,799
Series 2011-RR4 Class 8A1 5.250%, 02/26/36 (144A)		13,027,726		13,059,702

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Collateralized-Mortgage Obligations—(Continued)
Series 2011-RR5 Class 5A1 5.250%, 08/26/37 (144A)		23,354,000	$	22,886,920
Bear Stearns Adjustable Rate Mortgage Trust Series 2002-11 Class 1A2 2.821%, 02/25/33 (b)		34,760		27,948
Series 2005-5 Class A2 2.250%, 08/25/35 (b)		1,645,574		1,411,296
Series 2005-5 Series A1 2.220%, 08/25/35 (b)		56,991		52,569
Bear Stearns ALT-A Trust Series 2004-11 Class 1A2
1.134%, 11/25/34 (b)		1,269,963		952,579
Series 2005-4 Class 23A1 2.592%, 05/25/35 (b)		2,824,508		2,071,986
Series 2005-7 Class 22A1 2.772%, 09/25/35 (b)		2,211,975		1,402,817
Series 2006-6 Class 31A1 2.515%, 11/25/36 (b)		6,684,901		3,316,717
Series 2006-6 Class 32A1 2.823%, 11/25/36 (b)		3,818,877		1,852,774
Bear Stearns Structured Products, Inc. Series 2007-R6 Class 1A1
2.553%, 01/26/36 (b)		2,270,991		1,335,736
Series 2007-R6 Class 2A1 3.618%, 12/26/46 (b)		1,569,158		930,647
Chase Mortgage Finance Corp. Series 2005-A1 Class 1A1 5.341%, 12/25/35 (b)		17,047,107		15,436,130
Series 2006-A1 Class 4A1 5.890%, 09/25/36 (b)		9,350,017		7,988,094
Chevy Chase Mortgage Funding Corp. Series 2004-3A Class A1
0.544%, 08/25/35 (144A) (b)		102,830		63,603
Series 2007-2A Class A1 0.424%, 05/25/48 (144A) (b)		4,000,398		1,769,168
Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Inc. Series 2005-11 Class A2A
2.580%, 10/25/35 (b)		9,909,924		8,144,288
Series 2005-6 Class A1 2.230%, 09/25/35 (b)		6,244,749		5,576,964
Series 2005-6 Class A2 2.450%, 09/25/35 (b)		2,041,533		1,629,009
Collateralized-Mortgage Obligations—(Continued)
Countrywide Alternative Loan Trust Series 2005-J3 Class 2A2 4.706%, 05/25/35 (b) (f)		7,333,626	$	809,534
Series 2006-OA1 Class 2A1 0.495%, 03/20/46 (b)		326,912		161,341
Countrywide Home Loan Mortgage Pass-Through Trust Series 2003-10 Class A2
5.750%, 05/25/33		11,536		11,567
Series 2005-2 Class 2A1 0.614%, 03/25/35 (b)		1,526,214		864,950
Series 2005-3 Class 1A2 0.584%, 04/25/35 (b)		172,922		95,096
Series 2005-R2 Class 1AF1 0.634%, 06/25/35 (144A)(b)		5,831,935		4,917,773
Series 2006-HYB5 Class 2A1 2.778%, 09/20/36 (b)		7,861,313		3,953,965
Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp. Series 2002-P1A Class A
0.884%, 03/25/32 (144A) (b)		140,108		105,740
Series 2003-8 Class 5A1 6.500%, 04/25/33		121,150		128,172
Series 2005-10 Class 8A3 6.000%, 11/25/35		3,975,348		3,065,955
DSLA Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2004-AR3 Class 2A1 2.688%, 07/19/44 (b)		1,170,526		826,200
First Horizon Alternative Mortgage Securities Series 2005-FA10 Class 1A2 4.406%, 01/25/36 (b) (f)		81,197,615		11,037,533
First Horizon Asset Securities, Inc. Series 2005-AR3 Class 2A1 2.746%, 08/25/35 (b)		432,954		333,456
GMAC Mortgage Corp. Loan Trust Series 93 Class 1 5.940%, 07/01/13 (g)		1,695		1,687
Granite Mortgages plc Series 2003-3 Class 2A 1.959%, 01/20/44 (EUR) (b)		633,850		787,831
Series 2003-3 Class 3A 1.354%, 01/20/44 (GBP) (b)		1,019,592		1,517,776
Series 2004-3 Class 2A2 1.697%, 09/20/44 (EUR) (b)		615,467		763,784

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Collateralized-Mortgage Obligations—(Continued)
Series 2004-3 Class 3A2 1.450%, 09/20/44 (GBP) (b)		5,164,548	$	7,675,972
Greenpoint Mortgage Funding Trust Series 2005-AR1 Class A2 0.514%, 06/25/45 (b)		117,763		69,441
Series 2006-AR8 Class 1A1A 0.374%, 01/25/47 (b)		28,304		26,746
GSR Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2003-2F Class 3A1 6.000%, 03/25/32		384		387
Series 2005-AR6 Class 2A1 2.685%, 09/25/35 (b)		149,478		130,786
Series 2006-AR2 Class 2A1 2.772%, 04/25/36 (b)		4,813,535		3,448,188
Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2005-2 Class 2A1A 0.505%, 05/19/35 (b)		1,842,415		978,182
Series 2006-12 Class 2A2A 0.475%, 01/19/38 (b)		276,510		160,735
Holmes Master Issuer plc Series 2011-1A Class A3 2.922%, 10/15/54 (144A)(EUR) (b)		7,600,000		9,826,703
Indymac ARM Trust Series 2001-H2 Class A1
1.717%, 01/25/32 (b)		1,177		937
Series 2001-H2 Class A2 1.785%, 01/25/32 (b)		37,687		29,827
Indymac Index Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2004-AR11 Class 2A 2.592%, 12/25/34 (b)		293,032		203,101
JPMorgan Mortgage Trust Series 2005-A1 Class 6T1 5.024%, 02/25/35 (b)		943,361		918,353
Series 2005-A4 Class 1A1 5.320%, 07/25/35 (b)		12,459,365		12,006,299
Series 2005-S3 Class 1A2 5.750%, 01/25/36		1,281,110		1,179,652
Series 2007-A1 Class 5A5 2.798%, 07/25/35 (b)		7,073,112		6,466,193
MASTR Alternative Loans Trust Series 2006-2 Class 2A1 0.694%, 03/25/36 (b)		949,610		209,044
Collateralized-Mortgage Obligations—(Continued)
Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc. Series 2005-A10 Class A 0.504%, 02/25/36 (b)		1,890,037	$	1,229,321
MLCC Mortgage Investors, Inc. Series 2005-2 Class 2A1 2.420%, 10/25/35 (b)		1,106,076		899,537
Series 2005-2 Class 3A 1.270%, 10/25/35 (b)		357,679		284,342
Series 2005-3 Class 4A 0.544%, 11/25/35 (b)		228,232		188,259
Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2005-4 Class 5A3 5.500%, 08/25/35		10,469,007		10,306,214
Nomura Asset Acceptance Corp. Series 2005-AP2 Class A5 4.976%, 05/25/35		7,186,278		6,009,755
RBSSP Resecuritization Trust Series 2011-4 Class 6A1 0.534%, 06/27/36 (144A) (b)		8,300,000		4,675,606
Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. Series 2003-QS6 Class A7 0.694%, 03/25/33 (b)		785,803		711,441
Series 2006-QO6 Class A1 0.474%, 06/25/46 (b)		2,367,544		747,451
Series 2006-QS7 Class A1 6.000%, 06/25/36		3,473,040		2,022,376
Residential Asset Securitization Trust Series 2003-A4 Class A3 0.694%, 05/25/33 (b)		488,990		468,002
Series 2006-R1 Class A2 0.694%, 01/25/46 (b)		2,368,623		992,176
Residential Funding Mortgage Securities I Series 2003-S11 Class A3 0.644%, 06/25/18 (b)		30,369		29,612
Sequoia Mortgage Trust Series 2003-4 Class 2A1 0.635%, 07/20/33 (b)		709,505		597,827
Structured Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2004-20 Class 3A1 2.533%, 01/25/35 (b)		4,072,137		3,001,387

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Collateralized-Mortgage Obligations—(Continued)
Series 2005-17 Class 3A1 2.532%, 08/25/35 (b)		308,809	$	221,458
Series 2005-7 Class 4A 2.417%, 04/25/35 (b)		13,345,194		9,276,224
Structured Asset Mortgage Investments, Inc. Series 2005-AR2 Class 2A1 0.524%, 05/25/45 (b)		1,856,166		1,014,017
Series 2005-AR5 Class A1 0.535%, 07/19/35 (b)		240,705		148,286
Series 2005-AR5 Class A2 0.535%, due 07/19/35 (b)		1,871,782		1,532,583
WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2002-AR2 Class A 2.468%, 02/27/34 (b)		460,902		439,259
Series 2002-AR6 Class A 1.608%, 06/25/42 (b)		283,745		207,740
Series 2002-AR9 Class 1A
1.608%, 08/25/42 (b)		147,981		118,392
Wells Fargo Mortgage Backed Securities Trust Series 2003-I Class A1 2.538%, 09/25/33 (b)		1,777,058		1,648,298
Series 2006-AR2 Class 2A1 2.666%, 03/25/36 (b)		9,268,000		7,197,840
Series 2006-AR2 Class 2A5 2.666%, 03/25/36 (b)		19,694,501		14,834,311
Series 2006-AR4 Class 2A6 5.617%, 04/25/36 (b)		1,746,126		716,531
Series 2006-AR8 Class 2A4 2.696%, 04/25/36 (b)		3,102,103		2,539,904
				275,278,827
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities—1.6%
Banc of America Commercial Mortgage, Inc. Series 2007-1 Class A4 5.451%, 01/15/49		8,400,000		9,160,998
Banc of America Large Loan, Inc. Series 2010-HLTN Class HLTN 2.028%, 11/15/15 (144A)(b)		6,878,338		6,229,508
Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. Series 2007-PW15 Class A4 5.331%, 02/11/44		400,000		422,804
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)
Series 2007-PW18 Class A4 5.700%, 06/11/50		6,400,000	$	7,107,504
Series 2007-T26 Class A4 5.471%, 01/12/45 (b)		1,100,000		1,243,823
Commercial Mortgage Pass Through-Certificates Series 2006-C8 Class A4 5.306%, 12/10/46		1,900,000		2,067,976
Credit Suisse Mortgage Capital Certificates Series 2006-C2 Class A3 5.661%, 03/15/39 (b)		400,000		430,804
Series 2006-C4 Class A3 5.467%, 09/15/39		22,300,000		23,797,947
Greenwich Capital Commercial Funding Corp. Series 2005-GG3 Class A4 4.799%, 08/10/42 (b)		100,000		107,704
Series 2007-GG9 Class A4 5.444%, 03/10/39		9,800,000		10,647,666
GS Mortgage Securities Corp. II Series 2007-EOP Class A1 1.143%, 03/06/20 (144A) (b)		5,039,302		4,998,177
JPMorgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp. Series 2007-LD12 Class A4 5.882%, 02/15/51 (b)		900,000		981,535
Series 2007-LDPX Class A3 5.420%, 01/15/49		400,000		434,095
Series 2010-C2 Class A3 4.070%, 11/15/43 (144A)		13,700,000		14,473,180
Lehman Brothers-UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust Series 2007-C7 Class A3 5.866%, 09/15/45 (b)		15,200,000		16,742,154
Merrill Lynch Floating Trust Series 2008-LAQA Class A1 0.814%, 07/09/21(144A) (b)		13,297,259		12,328,055
Merrill Lynch/Countrywide Commercial Mortgage Trust Series 2007-6 Class A4
5.485%, 03/12/51 (b)		2,200,000		2,323,017
Series 2007-8 Series A3 5.962%, 08/12/49 (b)		11,800,000		12,858,696

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)
Morgan Stanley Capital, Inc. Series 2007-IQ15 Class A4 5.879%, 06/11/49 (b)		3,600,000	$	3,973,500
Series 2007-IQ16 Class A4 5.809%, 12/12/49		200,000		221,152
Series 2007-XLFA Class A1 0.339%, 10/15/20 (144A) (b)		419,894		417,697
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Capital I Series 2003-HQ2 Class A2 4.920%, 03/12/35		495,000		509,761
Morgan Stanley Reremic Trust Series 2009-GG10 Class A4A 5.790%, 08/12/45 (144A) (b)		900,000		1,013,016
Silenus (European Loan Conduit) Series 25X Class A 1.612%, 05/15/19 (EUR) (b)		925,938		978,880
Sovereign Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust Series 2007-C1 Class A2 5.893%, 07/22/30 (144A) (b)		1,070,260		1,096,358
Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust Series 2006-WL7A Class A1 0.368%, 09/15/21 (144A) (b)		2,439,399		2,320,241
Series 2007-C30 Class A5 5.342%, 12/15/43		16,700,000		17,672,007
				154,558,255
Total Mortgage-Backed Securities (Cost $452,710,112)				429,837,082
Municipals—3.5%
American Municipal Power-Ohio, Inc., Combined Hydroelectric Projects Revenue, Build America Bonds, Taxable 8.084%, 02/15/50		6,900,000		9,637,368
Badger Tobacco Asset Securitization Corp. 6.125%, 06/01/27		115,000		117,746
Bay Area Toll Bridge Authority Build America Bonds, Series S1 7.043%, 04/01/50		10,400,000		13,694,096
Buckeye Tobacco Settlement Financing Authority 5.875%, 06/01/47		4,600,000		3,307,492
Municipals—(Continued)
California Infrastructure & Economic Development Bank Revenue, Build America Bonds 6.486%, 05/15/49		2,500,000	$	2,924,500
California State General Obligation Unlimited, Build America Bonds 5.650%, 04/01/13 (b)		2,700,000		2,832,840
7.500%, 04/01/34		2,900,000		3,482,465
7.950%, 03/01/36		5,700,000		6,451,146
7.550%, 04/01/39		2,900,000		3,548,788
7.600%, 11/01/40		1,900,000		2,347,849
California State Public Works Board Lease Revenue Build America Bonds, Taxable, University Projects, Series B-2 7.804%, 03/01/35		3,100,000		3,465,242
California State University Revenue, Build America Bonds 6.484%, 11/01/41		4,400,000		4,996,508
Calleguas-Las Virgenes California Public Financing Water Revenue Authority, Build America Bonds 5.944%, 07/01/40		7,800,000		8,912,514
Chicago Transit Authority Transfer Tax Receipts Revenue Series A
6.300%, 12/01/21		400,000		442,324
6.899%, 12/01/40		7,300,000		8,527,057
Series B 6.300%, 12/01/21		700,000		774,067
6.899%, 12/01/40		7,200,000		8,410,248
Clark County NV, Airport Revenue, Series C 6.820%, 07/01/45		4,800,000		6,041,088
Clark County NV, Refunding 4.750%, 06/01/30		5,500,000		5,647,015
East Baton Rouge Sewer Commission Build America Bonds 6.087%, 02/01/45		17,000,000		17,743,920
Golden State Tobacco Securitization Corp., Series A-1 5.000%, 06/01/33		10,000,000		6,995,800

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Municipals—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Municipals—(Continued)
Illinois Finance Authority Peoples Gas Light & Coke 5.000%, 02/01/33(AMBAC)		7,410,000	$	7,472,837
Illinois State General Obligation Unlimited, Taxable 4.511%, 03/01/15		2,200,000		2,291,212
Irvine Ranch CA, Water District, Build America Bonds, Taxable, Series B 6.622%, 05/01/40		21,700,000		29,128,995
Los Angeles CA, Wastewater System Revenue, Build America Bonds 5.713%, 06/01/39		2,300,000		2,630,211
Los Angeles Department of Water & Power Build America Bonds 6.166%, 07/01/40		60,200,000		65,614,990
Subseries A-2 5.000%, 07/01/44(AMBAC)		2,900,000		3,030,007
Los Angeles Department of Water & Power Revenue Build America Bonds 6.603%, 07/01/50		3,200,000		4,191,776
Los Angeles, California Unified School District Build America Bonds 6.758%, 07/01/34		1,100,000		1,366,244
Refunding, Series A 4.500%, 07/01/25(MBIA)		5,000,000		5,356,000
4.500%, 01/01/28(MBIA)		3,700,000		3,890,846
Metropolitan Transportation Authority Build America Bonds, Metro Transit Authority, Series A2 6.089%, 11/15/40		200,000		240,786
Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia 6.655%, 04/01/57		1,300,000		1,337,648
New Jersey Economic Development Authority Build America Bonds 1.546%, 06/15/13 (b)		19,100,000		19,102,865
New Jersey State Turnpike Authority Revenue, Build America Bonds, Taxable 7.102%, 01/01/41		5,300,000		7,261,318
Newport Beach CA, Certificates of Participation, Build America Bonds 7.168%, 07/01/40		31,650,000		35,849,322
Municipals—(Continued)
Palomar Community College District, Series A 4.750%, 05/01/32		300,000	$	310,092
Pennsylvania Economic Development Financing Authority Build America Bonds 6.532%, 06/15/39		1,000,000		1,162,990
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, One Hundred Sixtieth 5.647%, 11/01/40		3,000,000		3,407,970
Public Power Generation Agency, Build America Bonds, Whelan Energy Centre Unit, Series 2-B 7.242%, 01/01/41		1,800,000		2,062,746
State of California General Obligation Unlimited, Build America Bonds 7.700%, 11/01/30		100,000		113,705
State of Illinois 4.071%, 01/01/14		5,100,000		5,246,472
Build America Bonds 6.900%, 03/01/35		2,100,000		2,235,723
State of Texas Transportation Commission Mobility Funding, Series A 4.750%, 04/01/35		3,500,000		3,615,325
State of Texas Transportation Commission Revenue, Build America Bonds, Series B 5.178%, 04/01/30		3,000,000		3,488,070
Tobacco Settlement Financing Corp. 5.000%, 06/01/41		900,000		649,134
7.467%, 06/01/47		7,895,000		5,712,348
Tobacco Settlement Funding Corp. 5.875%, 05/15/39		2,000,000		2,004,840
6.250%, 06/01/42		1,300,000		1,270,516
University of California, CA, Regents Medical Center Pooled Revenue, Build America Bonds 6.548%, 05/15/48		3,400,000		4,048,856
Total Municipals (Cost $308,611,457)				344,393,917

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

25

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Asset-Backed Securities—1.8%

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Asset-Backed - Credit Card—0.3%
Citibank Omni Master Trust Series 2009-A8 Class A8 2.378%, 05/16/16 (144A) (b)		25,000,000	$	25,155,873
Asset-Backed - Home Equity—0.1%
Asset Backed Funding Certificates Series 2004-OPT5 Class A1 0.644%, 06/25/34 (b)		4,036,871		2,881,225
Asset Backed Securities Corp. Series 2007-HE2 Class A2 0.374%, 05/25/37 (b)		301,183		226,468
Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities Trust Series 2001-3 Class A2 1.094%, 10/27/32 (b)		19,042		16,120
Series 2007-3 Class A1 0.544%, 04/25/37 (b)		15,761,000		4,621,582
Series 2007-HE7 Class 1A1 1.294%, 10/25/37 (b)		7,107,226		3,943,302
Carrington Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2005-NC5 Class A2 0.614%, 10/25/35 (b)		666,050		613,894
Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Inc. Series 2007-AHL3 Class A3A 0.354%, 07/25/45 (b)		1,044,216		716,301
Morgan Stanley Capital, Inc. Series 2007-HE6 Class A1 0.354%, 05/25/37 (b)		566,823		480,907
Option One Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2003-5 Class A2 0.934%, 08/25/33 (b)		27,367		21,433
Series 2007-6 Class 2A1 0.354%, 07/25/37 (b)		406,975		389,463
Renaissance Home Equity Loan Trust Series 2003-2 Class A 0.734%, 08/25/33 (b)		255,770		211,987
Residential Asset Securities Corp. Series 2007-KS3 Class AI1 0.404%, 04/25/37 (b)		57,699		57,418
Soundview Home Equity Loan Trust Series 2007-OPT1 Class 2A1 0.374%, 06/25/37 (b)		60,569		46,989
Structured Asset Securities Corp. Series 2006-11 Class A1 2.650%, 10/25/35 (144A) (b)		96,165		76,053
				14,303,142
Asset-Backed - Other—1.3%
ARES CLO, Ltd. Series 2005-9A Class A1A 0.679%, 04/20/17 (144A) (b)		5,091,448	$	4,974,862
Avery Point CLO, Ltd. Series 2003-1A Class A1 1.039%, 12/17/15 (144A) (b)		1,147,971		1,130,084
Babson CLO, Ltd. Series 2004-1A Class A2A 0.916%, 06/15/16 (144A) (b)		2,755,193		2,701,948
Blackrock Senior Income Series Corp. Series 2006-4A Class A 0.649%, 04/20/19 (144A) (b)		7,870,863		7,281,644
Denali Capitala CLO IV, Ltd. Series 4A Class A 0.941%, 08/23/16 (144A) (b)		2,300,315		2,265,193
Dryden Leveraged Loan CDO Series 2003-5A Class A 1.110%, 12/22/15 (144A) (b)		734,852		725,345
Galaxy CLO, Ltd. Series 2007-8A Class A 0.658%, 04/25/19 (144A) (b)		14,400,681		13,371,958
Grayston CLO, Ltd. Series 2004-1A Class A1L 0.837%, 08/15/16 (144A) (b)		1,050,888		1,043,299
Green Tree Financial Corp. Series 1998-3 Class A5 6.220%, 03/01/30		99,816		108,370
Hillmark Funding Series 2006-1A Class A1 0.729%, 05/21/21 (144A)(b)		29,600,000		27,385,565
Hudson Straits CLO, Ltd. Series 2004-1A Class A2 0.783%, 10/15/16 (144A) (b)		2,376,536		2,339,682
Katonah, Ltd. Series 3A Class A 0.911%, 05/18/15 (144A) (b)		2,649,258		2,594,006
Series 4A Class A 1.120%, 02/20/150 (144A) (b)		634,043		629,465
Merrill Lynch First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2007-4 Class 2A1 0.354%, 07/25/37 (b)		3,457		3,423
Mid-State Trust Series 8 Class A 7.791%, 03/15/38		177,359		168,179

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

26

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Asset-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Asset-Backed - Other—(Continued)
Mountain View Funding CLO Series 2006-1A Class A1 0.663%, 04/15/19 (144A) (b)		4,958,831	$	4,733,176
MSIM Peconic Bay, Ltd. Series 2007-1A Class A1 0.689%, 07/20/19 (144A)(b)		9,200,000		8,761,365
Octagon Investment Partners V, Ltd. Series 5A Class A1 0.812%, 11/28/18 (144A) (b)		12,600,000		11,759,039
Octagon Investment Partners VII, Ltd. Series 2004-7A Class A1L 0.889%, 12/02/16 (144A) (b)		3,809,844		3,713,985
Pacifica CDO, Ltd. Series 2004-3A Class A1 0.932%, 05/13/16 (144A) (b)		3,610,817		3,505,091
Series 2005-5A Class A1 0.680%, 01/26/20 (144A) (b)		12,051,095		11,189,080
Penta CLO S.A. Series 2007-1X Class A1 1.917%, 06/04/24 (EUR) (b)		2,808,091		3,238,045
Popular ABS Mortgage Pass-Through Trust Series 2007-A Class A1 0.384%, 06/25/47 (b)		1,375,015		1,204,978
Small Business Administration Participation Certificates 5.500%, 10/01/18		41,415		44,802
Series 2008-2011 Class 1 6.220%, 12/01/28		8,380,622		9,591,732
United States Small Business Administration Series 2008-10A Class 1 5.471%, 03/10/18		3,531,936		3,874,696
				128,339,012
Asset-Backed - Student Loan—0.1%
SLM Student Loan Trust Series 2004-4 Class A2 0.548%, 01/25/19 (b)		6,644,898		6,593,260
Series 2008-2 Class A2 0.868%, 01/25/17 (b)		3,000,000		2,991,021
Series 2010-C Class A2 2.928%, 12/16/19 (144A) (b)		2,200,000		2,239,692
				11,823,973
Total Asset-Backed Securities (Cost $185,599,960)				179,622,000
Preferred Stocks—0.9%
Security Description	Shares/Par Amount		Value
Commercial Banks—0.6%
Wells Fargo & Co. (b)		50,400,000	$	54,243,000
Diversified Financial Services—0.3%
GMAC Capital Trust I, Series 2 (b)		1,130,800		22,007,064
JPMorgan Chase & Co., Series 1 (b)		8,200,000		8,759,913
				30,766,977
Total Preferred Stocks (Cost $84,387,349)				85,009,977
Convertible Preferred Stocks—0.6%
Commercial Banks—0.6%
Wells Fargo & Co. Series L 7.500%, 12/31/49		53,950		56,863,300
Total Convertible Preferred Stocks (Cost $40,014,654)
Loan Participation—0.3%
Consumer Finance—0.2%
Springleaf Finance Corp. 5.500%, 05/10/17 (b)	$	23,300,000		20,368,044
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—0.1%
Petroleum Export, Ltd. 3.563%, 12/20/12 (b)		5,169,480		5,146,864
Total Loan Participation (Cost $28,338,169)				25,514,908
Short-Term Investments—3.0%
Commercial Paper—1.5%
Bank of Nova Scotia 0.691%, 08/09/12 (b)		7,400,000		7,397,780
Erste Abwicklungsanstalt 0.370%, 01/17/12		1,800,000		1,799,704
Itau Unibanco S.A. New York 1.000%, 01/04/12		8,900,000		8,898,889
0.010%, 01/17/12		29,500,000		29,477,452
Kells Funding LLC 0.310%, 01/27/12		96,900,000		96,878,305
Vodafone Group plc 0.830%, 01/13/12		1,800,000		1,799,502
				146,251,632

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

27

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Short-Term Investments—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Repurchase Agreements—1.3%
Citigroup, Inc. Repurchase Agreement, dated 12/30/11 at 0.070% to be repurchased at $6,600,051 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $6,685,000 Federal National Mortgage Association at 3.200% due 10/29/20 with a value of $6,735,019.		6,600,000	$	6,600,000
Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Repurchase Agreement, dated 12/30/11 at 0.030% to be repurchased at $55,600,185 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $40,125,000 U.S. Treasury Bond at 5.000% due 05/15/37 with a value of $56,937,127.		55,600,000		55,600,000
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $2,763,003 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $750,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Association at 0.625% due 12/23/13 with a value of $749,063; collateralized by $2,075,000 Federal National Mortgage Association at 0.000% due 06/06/12 with a value of $2,073,963.		2,763,000		2,763,000
Goldman Sachs & Co. Repurchase Agreement, dated 12/30/11 at 0.110% to be repurchased at $10,000,122 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $11,549,000 Federal National Mortgage Association at 6.000% due 06/01/40 with a value of $10,357,870.		10,000,000		10,000,000
Repurchase Agreements—(Continued)
Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.
Repurchase Agreement, dated 11/03/11 at 0.190% to be repurchased at $24,409,143 on 01/03/12 collateralized by $22,630,000 Government National Mortgage Association at 5.500% due 08/15/40 with a value of $25,161,574.		24,400,000	$	24,400,000
Repurchase Agreement, dated 12/30/11 at 0.06% to be repurchased at $14,200,095 on 01/03/12 collateralized by $13,556,200 U.S. Treasury Note at 2.625% due 06/30/14 with a value of $14,505,226.		14,200,000		14,200,000
Repurchase Agreement, dated 12/30/11 at 0.060% to be repurchased at $15,000,100 on 01/03/12 collateralized by $14,320,000 U.S. Treasury Note at 2.625% due 06/30/14 with a value of $15,322,497.		15,000,000		15,000,000
				128,563,000
U.S. Treasury — 0.2%
U.S. Treasury Bills 0.005%, 01/05/12 (c) (i)		1,880,000		1,879,999
0.005%, 02/02/12 (c) (i)		820,000		819,996
0.026%, 02/23/12 (c) (i)		530,000		529,980
0.010%, 03/01/12 (c) (i)		820,000		819,986
0.026%, 03/15/12 (c) (i)		350,000		349,980
0.045%, 03/29/12 (c) (i)		410,000		409,955
0.029%, 05/10/12 (c) (i)		2,850,000		2,849,705
0.040%, 05/17/12 (c) (i)		1,180,000		1,179,820
0.061%, 05/24/12 (c) (i)		610,000		609,852
0.039%, 06/07/12 (c) (i)		4,486,000		4,485,234
0.035%, 06/21/12 (c) (i)		320,000		319,947
0.055%, 06/28/12 (c) (i)		2,500,000		2,499,317
				16,753,771
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $291,568,403)				291,568,403
Total Investments—128.7% (Cost $12,484,401,998#)				12,569,784,802
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(28.7)%				(2,801,048,474	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	9,768,736,328

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

28

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Short-Term Investments—(Continued)

† Par amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

†† All or a portion of the security was pledged as collateral against open future contracts. At the period end, the value of the securities pledged amounted to $31,652,014.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $12,455,932,717. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $352,176,728 and $(238,324,643), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $113,852,085 for federal income tax purposes.

(a) This security is traded on a “to-be-announced” basis.

(b) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2011. Maturity date shown for callable securities reflects the earliest possible call date.

(c) Interest rate represents current yield to maturity.

(d) Security is in default and/or issuer is in bankruptcy.

(e) Security is a “step-up” bond where coupon increases or steps up at a predetermined date. Rates shown are current coupon and next coupon rate when security steps up.

(f) Interest only security.

(g) Security was valued in good faith under procedures approved by the Board of Trustees.

(h) All or a portion of the security was pledged as collateral against open reverse repurchase agreements. At December 31, 2011, the value of the securities pledged amounted to $13,728,040.

(i) All or a portion of the security was pledged as collateral against open swap contracts. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities pledged was $94,210,417.

(144A)— Securities exempt from registration under Rule 144A of the Securities Act of 1933. These securities may be resold in transactions exempt from registration, normally to qualified institutional buyers. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of 144A securities was $1,136,209,037, which is 11.6% of net assets.

(AMBAC)— Ambac Indemnity Corporation

(ARM)— Adjustable Rate Mortgage

(BRL)— Brazilian Real

(CAD)— Canadian Dollar

(DKK)— Danish Krone

(EMTN)— Euro Medium Term Note

(EUR)— Euro

(GBP)— British Pound

(GMTN)— Global Medium Term Note

(JPY)— Japanese Yen

(MBIA)— Municipal Bond Insurance Association

(MTN)— Medium Term Note

(MXN)— Mexican Peso

(REMIC)— Real Estate Mortgage Investment Coduit

(SGD)— Singapore Dollar

(TBA)— To Be Announced

Forward Sales Commitments

Security Sold Short	Counterparty	Interest Rate			Maturity		Proceeds			Value
Fannie Mae 15 Yr. Pool	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		4.000	%		TBA	$	(3,163,594	)	$	(3,164,531	)
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool	Citibank N.A./Credit Suisse International/Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		3.500	%		TBA		(36,577,500	)		(37,035,000	)
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool	Goldman Sachs & Co.		3.500	%		TBA		(22,292,187	)		(22,299,064	)
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool	Citibank N.A./Credit Suisse International/JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		5.000	%		TBA		(204,495,625	)		(206,369,579	)
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool	Credit Suisse International		5.000	%		TBA		(169,510,938	)		(170,022,852	)
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool	Goldman Sachs & Co.		5.000	%		TBA		(60,261,250	)		(60,103,764	)
Total							$	(496,301,094	)	$	(498,994,790	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

29

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1			Level 2			Level 3		Total
Total U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies*	$	—		$	7,211,885,973		$	—	$	7,211,885,973
Total Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities*		—			2,591,530,462			—		2,591,530,462
Total Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities*		—			1,353,558,780			—		1,353,558,780
Mortgage-Backed Securities
Collateralized-Mortgage Obligations		—			275,277,140			1,687		275,278,827
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities		—			154,558,255			—		154,558,255
Total Mortgage-Backed Securities*		—			429,835,395			1,687		429,837,082
Municipals		—			344,393,917			—		344,393,917
Total Asset-Backed Securities*		—			179,622,000			—		179,622,000
Total Preferred Stocks*		—			85,009,977			—		85,009,977
Total Convertible Preferred Stocks*		56,863,300			—			—		56,863,300
Total Loan Participation*		—			25,514,908			—		25,514,908
Total Short-Term Investments*		—			291,568,403			—		291,568,403
Total Investments	$	56,863,300		$	12,512,919,815		$	1,687	$	12,569,784,802
Forward Contracts**
Forward Foreign Currency Contracts (Unrealized Appreciation)	$	—		$	49,952,628		$	—	$	49,952,628
Forward Foreign Currency Contracts (Unrealized Depreciation)		—			(26,223,142	)		—		(26,223,142	)
Total Forward Contracts	$	—		$	23,729,486		$	—	$	23,729,486
Futures Contracts**
Futures Contracts (Unrealized Appreciation)	$	26,860,740		$	—		$	—	$	26,860,740
Futures Contracts (Unrealized Depreciation)		(691,861	)		—			—		(691,861	)
Total Futures Contracts	$	26,168,879		$	—		$	—	$	26,168,879
Forward Sales Commitments	$	—		$	(498,994,790	)	$	—	$	(498,994,790	)
Written Options**
Inflation Floor	$	—		$	(401,574	)	$	—	$	(401,574	)
Interest Rate Swaps		—			(7,230,419	)		—		(7,230,419	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

30

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY—(Continued)

Description	Level 1			Level 2			Level 3		Total
Options on Exchange-Traded Futures Contracts	$	(108,063	)	$	—		$	—	$	(108,063	)
Total Written Options	$	(108,063	)	$	(7,631,993	)	$	—	$	(7,740,056	)
OTC Swap Contracts**
OTC Swap contracts at value (Assets) (a)	$	—		$	63,480,497		$	—	$	63,480,497
OTC Swap contracts at value (Liabilities) (b)		—			(56,674,793	)		—		(56,674,793	)
Total OTC Swap Contracts	$	—		$	(6,805,704	)	$	—	$	(6,805,704	)
Centrally Cleared Swap Contracts**
Centrally Cleared Swaps (Unrealized Appreciation)		—			13,223,232			—		13,223,232
Centrally Cleared Swaps (Unrealized Depreciation)		—			(25,244,962	)		—		(25,244,962	)
Total Centrally Cleared Swap Contracts		—			(12,021,730	)		—		(12,021,730	)

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

** Derivative instruments such as forwards, futures and centrally cleared swap contracts are valued on the unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the instrument. Written options and OTC swap contracts are presented at value.

Following is a reconciliation of Level 3 assets for which significant unobservable inputs were used to determine fair value:

Investments in Securities	Balance as of December 31, 2010		Realized Gain		Change in Unrealized Depreciation			Sales			Balance as of December 31, 2011		Change in Unrealized Appreciation for Investments Held at December 31, 2011
Mortgage-Backed Securities	$	179,832	$	28	$	(175,475	)	$	(2,698	)	$	1,687	$	1,359

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

31

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)	$	12,441,221,802
Repurchase Agreements		128,563,000
Cash		49,986
Foreign currency (b)		11,139,071
Cash collateral with brokers for futures		19,000
Receivable for investments sold		730,008,265
Receivable for shares sold		4,371,139
Interest receivable		76,478,728
Net variation margin on financial futures contracts		5,476,533
Swap interest receivable		1,990,249
Swaps at market value (c)		63,480,497
Variation margin receivable on swap contracts		3,305,786
Unrealized appreciation on forward currency exchange contracts		49,952,628
Miscellaneous Assets		523,979
Total assets		13,516,580,663
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		3,063,850,149
Cash collateral with brokers (d)		70,580,000
Reverse repurchase agreements		13,764,500
Shares redeemed		3,196,101
Forward sales commitments, at value (e)		498,994,790
Swaps at market value (f)		56,674,793
Variation margin payable on swap contracts		803,566
Unrealized depreciation on forward currency exchange contracts		26,223,142
Outstanding written options (g)		7,740,056
Swap interest		485,323
Interest on reverse repurchase agreements		532
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		3,930,396
Distribution and service fees - Class B		934,593
Distribution and service fees - Class E		10,720
Administration fees		41,339
Custodian and accounting fees		214,485
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		374,783
Total liabilities		3,747,844,335
Net Assets	$	9,768,736,328
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	9,372,721,107
Accumulated net realized gain		(87,208,124	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments, futures contracts, written options contracts, forward sales commitments, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		154,480,903
Undistributed net investment income		328,742,442
Net Assets	$	9,768,736,328
Net Assets
Class A	$	5,249,408,933
Class B		4,436,113,664
Class E		83,213,731
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		432,248,366
Class B		370,780,773
Class E		6,907,273
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	12.14
Class B		11.96
Class E		12.05

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreements, was $12,355,838,998.

(b) Identified cost of cash denominated in foreign currencies was $11,383,835

(c) Net premium paid on swaps was $27,752,746.

(d) Includes collateral of $350,000 for forwards, $61,360,000 for swaps, $900,000 for reverse repurchase agreements and $7,970,000 for TBAs.

(e) Includes $496,301,094 relating to forward sales commitments.

(f) Net premium received on swaps was $(27,809,885).

(g) Premiums received on written options were $33,175,987.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends	$	6,181,138
Interest		286,077,782
Total investment income		292,258,920
Expenses
Management fees		46,737,762
Administration fees		470,984
Custodian and accounting fees		2,245,288
Distribution and service fees - Class B		10,821,647
Distribution and service fees - Class E		149,789
Interest expense		131,304
Audit and tax services		98,297
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,423
Shareholder reporting		462,599
Insurance		62,293
Miscellaneous		93,002
Total expenses		61,341,674
Net investment income		230,917,246
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments, Futures Contracts, Written Options Contracts, Forward Sales Commitments, Swaps Contracts and Foreign Currency Transactions
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments		117,257,533
Futures contracts		79,892,753
Written options contracts		(20,889,974	)
Swap contracts		(114,056,387	)
Foreign currency transactions		12,586,740
Net realized gain on investments, futures contracts, written options contracts, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		74,790,665
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on:
Investments		(37,450,086	)
Futures contracts		35,594,005
Written options contracts		35,282,647
Swap contracts		(26,842,151	)
Foreign currency transactions		16,764,517
Net change in unrealized appreciation on investments, futures contracts, written options contracts, forward sales commitments, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		23,348,932
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments, futures contracts, written options contracts, forward sales commitments, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		98,139,597
Net Increase in Net Assets from Operations	$	329,056,843

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

32

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	230,917,246		$	188,552,358
Net realized gain on investments, futures contracts, written options contracts, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		74,790,665			397,523,418
Net change in unrealized appreciation on investments, futures contracts, written options contracts, forward sales commitments, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		23,348,932			56,388,960
Net increase in net assets resulting from operations		329,056,843			642,464,736
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(168,583,952	)		(168,538,898	)
Class B		(114,599,829	)		(117,649,661	)
Class E		(2,895,746	)		(3,886,900	)
From net realized capital gains
Class A		(181,361,626	)		(24,340,157	)
Class B		(132,645,160	)		(17,748,769	)
Class E		(3,288,406	)		(582,497	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(603,374,719	)		(332,746,882	)
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		422,062,751			2,255,272,505
Net Increase in Net Assets		147,744,875			2,564,990,359
Net assets at beginning of period		9,620,991,453			7,056,001,094
Net assets at end of period	$	9,768,736,328		$	9,620,991,453
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	328,742,442		$	264,795,658

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		78,747,781		$	964,499,771			113,975,303		$	1,390,268,654
Reinvestments		29,210,816			349,945,578			16,167,565			192,879,055
Redemptions		(120,364,303	)		(1,450,852,861	)		(26,248,418	)		(323,370,121	)
Net increase (decrease)		(12,405,706	)	$	(136,407,512	)		103,894,450		$	1,259,777,588
Class B
Sales		82,955,273		$	1,003,727,570			114,832,514		$	1,397,664,338
Reinvestments		20,917,512			247,244,989			11,493,924			135,398,430
Redemptions		(54,979,342	)		(660,044,100	)		(44,449,844	)		(541,598,121	)
Net increase		48,893,443		$	590,928,459			81,876,594		$	991,464,647
Class E
Sales		592,291		$	7,234,161			3,072,747		$	38,243,830
Reinvestments		519,677			6,184,152			377,164			4,469,397
Redemptions		(3,778,746	)		(45,876,509	)		(3,166,247	)		(38,682,957	)
Net increase (decrease)		(2,666,778	)	$	(32,458,196	)		283,664		$	4,030,270
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	422,062,751					$	2,255,272,505

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

33

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	12.47		$	12.02		$	11.60		$	12.29		$	11.80
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.30			0.28			0.45			0.59			0.56
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		0.12			0.71			1.47			(0.51	)		0.35
Total from investment operations		0.42			0.99			1.92			0.08			0.91
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.36	)		(0.47	)		(0.96	)		(0.48	)		(0.42	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.39	)		(0.07	)		(0.54	)		(0.29	)		0.00
Total distributions		(0.75	)		(0.54	)		(1.50	)		(0.77	)		(0.42	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	12.14		$	12.47		$	12.02		$	11.60		$	12.29
Total Return (%)		3.42			8.41			18.39			0.64			7.85
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.51			0.51			0.52			0.52			0.54
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.47			2.31			3.93			5.00			4.74
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		515.8			713.7			633.1			800.2			493.9
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	5,249.4		$	5,543.8		$	4,095.7		$	2,696.4		$	3,045.1

	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	12.30		$	11.87		$	11.47		$	12.17		$	11.69
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.27			0.25			0.42			0.55			0.53
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		0.11			0.70			1.45			(0.50	)		0.34
Total from investment operations		0.38			0.95			1.87			0.05			0.87
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.33	)		(0.45	)		(0.93	)		(0.46	)		(0.39	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.39	)		(0.07	)		(0.54	)		(0.29	)		0.00
Total distributions		(0.72	)		(0.52	)		(1.47	)		(0.75	)		(0.39	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	11.96		$	12.30		$	11.87		$	11.47		$	12.17
Total Return (%)		3.17			8.17			18.03			0.41			7.56
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.76			0.76			0.77			0.78			0.79
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.23			2.06			3.64			4.77			4.51
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		515.8			713.7			633.1			800.2			943.9
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	4,436.1		$	3,958.7		$	2,849.6		$	1,353.6		$	1,274.4

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

34

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	12.37		$	11.93		$	11.52		$	12.21		$	11.73
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.28			0.27			0.44			0.57			0.54
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		0.13			0.69			1.44			(0.51	)		0.35
Total from investment operations		0.41			0.96			1.88			0.06			0.89
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.34	)		(0.45	)		(0.93	)		(0.46	)		(0.41	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.39	)		(0.07	)		(0.54	)		(0.29	)		0.00
Total distributions		(0.73	)		(0.52	)		(1.47	)		(0.75	)		(0.41	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	12.05		$	12.37		$	11.93		$	11.52		$	12.21
Total Return (%)		3.37			8.24			18.21			0.47			7.63
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.66			0.66			0.67			0.67			0.69
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.31			2.17			3.82			4.88			4.61
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		515.8			713.7			633.1			800.2			943.9
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	83.2		$	118.5		$	110.9		$	88.8		$	132.0

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

35

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is PIMCO Total Return Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A, B and E Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

36

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Swap contracts are marked-to-market daily based on quotations and prices supplied by market makers, broker-dealers and pricing services. Such quotations and prices are derived utilizing significant observable data, including the underlying investments. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to futures transactions, foreign currency transactions, swap transactions, options transactions, premium amortization adjustments, paydown transactions, contingent payment debt instrument adjustments, forward transactions, deferred trustees’ compensation, and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Foreign Currency Translation - The books and records of the Portfolio are maintained in U.S. dollars. The values of securities, currencies and other assets and liabilities denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars are translated into U.S. dollars based upon foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period. Purchases and sales of investment securities, income and expenses are translated on the respective dates of

37

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

such transactions. Since the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, it is not practical to isolate that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates from that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities. Such fluctuations are included in the net realized and unrealized gain or loss on investments.

Net realized foreign exchange gains or losses arise from activity in forward foreign currency exchange contracts, sales of foreign currency, currency gains or losses realized between the trade and settlement dates on securities transactions, and the difference between the amounts of dividends, interest, and foreign withholding taxes recorded by the Portfolio and the U.S. dollar equivalent of the amounts actually received or paid by the Portfolio. Gains and losses attributable to foreign currency exchange rates on sales of securities are recorded as Net realized gains and losses on investments. Net unrealized foreign exchange gains and losses arise from changes in the value of assets and liabilities, other than investment securities, resulting from changes in foreign exchange rates.

Short Sales - The Portfolio may enter into a “short sale” of securities in circumstances in which, at the time the short position is open, the Portfolio owns an equal amount of the securities sold short or owns preferred stocks or debt securities, convertible or exchangeable without payment of further consideration, into an equal number of securities sold short. This kind of short sale, which is referred to as one “against the box,” may be entered into by the Portfolio to, for example, lock in a sale price for a security the Portfolio does not wish to sell immediately.

The Portfolio may also make short sales of a security it does not own, in anticipation of a decline in the market value of that security. To complete such a transaction, the Portfolio must borrow the security to make delivery to the buyer. The Portfolio then is obligated to replace the security borrowed by purchasing it at market price at the time of replacement. The price at such time may be more or less than the price at which the security was sold by the Portfolio. Until the security is replaced, the Portfolio is required to pay to the lender any dividends or interest which accrue during the period of the loan. To borrow the security, the Portfolio also may be required to pay a premium, which would increase the cost of the security sold. The proceeds of the short sale will be retained by the broker, to the extent necessary to meet margin requirements, until the short position is closed out. Until the Portfolio replaces a borrowed security, the Portfolio will segregate with its custodian, or earmark, cash or other liquid assets at such a level that (i) the amount segregated, or earmarked, plus the amount deposited with the broker as collateral will equal the current value of the security sold short and (ii) the amount segregated plus the amount deposited with the broker as collateral will not be less than the market value of the security at the time it was sold short. The Portfolio will incur a loss as a result of the short sale if the price of the security increases between the date of the short sale and the date on which the Portfolio replaces the borrowed security. The Portfolio will realize a gain if the security declines in price between those dates. This result is the opposite of what one would expect from a cash purchase of a long position in a security. The amount of any gain will be decreased, and the amount of any loss increased, by the amount of any premium, dividends or interest the Portfolio may be required to pay in connection with a short sale. No more than one third of the Portfolio’s net assets will be, when added together: (i) deposited as collateral for the obligation to replace securities borrowed to effect short sales; and (ii) segregated in connection with short sales.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

Reverse Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into reverse repurchase agreements with qualified institutions to seek to enhance returns. Reverse repurchase agreements involve sales by the Portfolio of securities concurrently with an agreement by the Portfolio to repurchase the same assets at a later date at a fixed price. During the reverse repurchase agreement period, the Portfolio continues to receive principal and interest payments on these securities. The Portfolio will establish a segregated account with its custodian in which it will maintain liquid assets equal in value to its obligations in respect of reverse repurchase agreements. Reverse repurchase agreements involve the risk that the market value of the securities retained by the Portfolio may decline below the price of the securities the Portfolio has sold but is obligated to repurchase under the agreement. In the event the buyer of securities under a reverse repurchase agreement files for bankruptcy or becomes insolvent, the Portfolio’s use of the proceeds of the agreement may be restricted pending a determination by the other party, or its trustee or receiver, whether to enforce the Portfolio’s obligation to repurchase the securities. For the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had an outstanding reverse repurchase agreement balance for 117 days. The average amount of borrowings was $223,128,183 and the weighted average interest rate was 0.18%.

Forward Commitments and When-Issued and Delayed-Delivery Securities - The Portfolio may purchase securities on a when-issued or delayed delivery basis and may purchase or sell securities on a forward commitment basis. Settlement of such transactions normally occurs within a month or more after the purchase or sale commitment is made. The Portfolio may purchase securities under such conditions only with the intention of actually acquiring them, but may enter into a separate agreement to sell the securities before the settlement date. Since the value of

38

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

securities purchased may fluctuate prior to settlement, the Portfolio may be required to pay more at settlement than the security is worth. In addition, the purchaser is not entitled to any of the interest earned prior to settlement.

Upon making a commitment to purchase a security on a when-issued, delayed delivery or forward commitment basis, the Portfolio will hold liquid assets in a segregated account at the Portfolio’s custodian bank worth at least the equivalent of the amount due. The liquid assets will be monitored on a daily basis and adjusted as necessary to maintain the necessary value

TBA Purchase & Sale Commitments - The Portfolio may enter into TBA commitments to purchase or sell securities for a fixed price at a future date. TBA commitments are considered securities in themselves, and involve a risk of loss if the value of the security to be purchased or sold declines or increases prior to settlement date, which is in addition to the risk of decline in the value of the Portfolio’s other assets. Unsettled TBA commitments are valued at the current market value of the underlying securities, according to the procedures described under “Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements”.

Mortgage Dollar Rolls - The Portfolio may enter into mortgage “dollar rolls” in which a Portfolio sells TBA mortgage-backed securities for delivery in the current month and simultaneously contracts to repurchase substantially similar (same type, coupon and maturity) securities on a specified future date. During the roll period, the Portfolio foregoes principal (including prepayments of principal) and interest paid on the securities sold. Dollar rolls are accounted for as purchase and sale transactions; gain or loss is recognized at the commencement of the term of the dollar roll and each time the mortgage-backed security is rolled.

A Portfolio that enters into mortgage dollar rolls is subject to the risk that the market value of the securities the Portfolio is obligated to repurchase may decline below the agreed upon repurchase price. In the event the buyer of securities under a mortgage dollar roll files for bankruptcy or becomes insolvent, the Portfolio’s use of proceeds from the dollar roll may be restricted pending a court determination, a determination by the other party, or its trustee or receiver, whether to enforce the Portfolio’s obligation to repurchase the securities sold.

Loan Participations - The Portfolio may invest in loans arranged through private negotiation between one or more financial institutions. The Portfolio’s investment in any such loan may be in the form of a participation in or an assignment of the loan. In connection with purchasing participations or an assignment, the Portfolio generally will have no right to enforce compliance by the borrower with the terms of the loan agreement relating to the loan, nor any rights of set-off against the borrower and the Portfolio may not benefit directly from any collateral supporting the loan in which it has purchased the participation or assignment.

Mortgage Related and Other Asset Backed Securities - The Portfolio may invest in mortgage related or other asset-backed securities. These securities may include mortgage pass-through securities, collateralized mortgaged obligations (“CMOs”), commercial mortgage-backed securities, mortgage dollar rolls, CMO residuals, stripped mortgage backed securities (“SMBS”) and other securities that directly or indirectly represent a participation in, or are secured by or payable from, mortgage loans on real property or other receivables. The value of some mortgage or asset-backed securities may be particularly sensitive to changes in prevailing interest rates. Early repayment of principal on some mortgage-related securities may expose the Portfolio to a lower rate of return upon reinvestment of principal. The value of these securities may fluctuate in response to the market’s perception of the creditworthiness of the issuers. Additionally, although mortgages and mortgage-related securities are generally supported by some form of government or private guarantee and/or insurance, there is no assurance that private guarantors or insurers will meet their obligations.

In one type of SMBS, one class receives all of the interest from the mortgage assets (the interest-only or “IO” class), while the other class will receive all of the principal (the principal-only or “PO” class). Payments received for the IOs are included in interest income on the Statement of Operations of the Portfolio. Because principal will not be received at the maturity of an IO, adjustments are made to the book value of the security until maturity. These adjustments are included in interest income on the Statement of Operations of the Portfolio. Payments received for POs are treated as reductions to the cost and par value of the securities. Details of mortgage related and other asset-backed securities held by the Portfolio are included in the Portfolio’s Schedule of Investments.

The Portfolio may invest a significant portion of its assets in securities of issuers that hold mortgage and asset-backed securities and direct investments in securities backed by commercial and residential mortgage loans and other financial assets. The value and related income of these securities are sensitive to changes in economic conditions, including delinquencies and/or defaults, and may be negatively impacted by increased volatility of market prices and periods of illiquidity.

High Yield Debt Securities - The Portfolio may invest in high yield debt securities, or “junk bonds,” which are securities that are rated below “investment grade” or, if not rated, are of equivalent quality. A portfolio with high yield debt securities generally will be exposed to greater market risk and credit risk than a portfolio that invests only in investment grade debt securities because issuers of high yield debt securities are less secure financially, are more likely to default on their obligations, and their securities are more sensitive to interest rate changes and downturns in the economy. In addition, the secondary market for lower-rated debt securities may not be as liquid as that for more highly rated debt securities. As a result, the Portfolio’s Subadviser may find it more difficult to value lower-rated debt securities or sell them and may have to sell them at prices significantly lower than the values assigned to them by the Portfolio.

39

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with Pacific Investment Management Company LLC (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year  ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$46,737,762		0.500	%	First $1.2 Billion
		0.475	%	Over $1.2 Billion

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Distribution Agreements and Plans - The Trust has distribution agreements with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A, Class B and Class E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B and Class E distribution plans provide that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% and 0.25%, respectively, of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B and Class E Shares. However, under the Class B and Class E distribution agreements, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B and Class E distribution plans are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% and 0.15% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares, respectively. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B and Class E distribution plans and distribution agreements the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B and Class E Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$45,242,840,299	$	8,311,323,588	$	45,817,361,217	$	7,468,559,787

40

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - The Portfolio may enter into forward foreign currency exchange contracts to hedge its portfolio holdings against the risk of future movements in certain foreign currency exchange rates. When entering into these contracts, the Portfolio agrees to receive or deliver a fixed quantity of foreign currency for an agreed-upon price on an agreed upon future date. These contracts are valued daily and the Portfolio’s net equity therein, representing unrealized gain or loss on the contracts as measured by the difference between the forward foreign exchange rates at the dates of entry into the contracts and the forward foreign exchange rates at the value date, is included in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. When a contract is closed, the Portfolio recognizes a realized gain or loss equal to the difference between the value of the contract at the time it was opened and the value at the time it was closed.

Realized and unrealized gains and losses on forward foreign currency exchange contracts are included in the Statement of Operations. These contracts involve market and/or credit risk in excess of the amount recognized in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

The use of forward foreign currency exchange contracts does not eliminate fluctuations in the underlying prices of the securities of the Portfolio, but it does establish a rate of exchange that can be achieved in the future. Although forward foreign currency exchange contracts may limit the risk of loss due to a decline in the value of the currency holdings, they also limit any potential gain that might result should the value of the currency increase. In addition, the Portfolio could be exposed to risks if the counterparties to the contracts are unable to meet the terms of the contracts. The Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit risk, as opposed to investment and other types of risk, in respect of foreign currency forward contracts is typically the value of the currency the Portfolio is due from its counterparty at settlement plus the value of the currency paid, if any, to the Portfolio’s counterparty.

Futures Contracts - The Portfolio may buy and sell futures contracts (on recognized exchanges) as a hedge, to maintain investment exposure to a target asset class or to enhance return. The Portfolio may be subject to fluctuations in equity prices, interest rates, commodity prices and foreign currency exchange rates in the normal course of pursuing its investment objective. Futures contracts are standardized agreements to buy or sell a security, or deliver a final cash settlement price in connection with an index, interest rate, currency, or other asset. The Portfolio must deposit an amount (“initial margin”) equal to a certain percentage of the face value of the futures contract. The initial margin may be in the form of cash or securities which is returned when the Portfolio’s obligations under the contract have been satisfied. If cash is deposited as the initial margin, it is shown as “restricted cash” on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Futures contracts are marked-to-market daily and subsequent payments (“variation margin”) are made or received by the Portfolio depending on the daily fluctuations in the value of the futures contracts. These amounts are reflected as receivables or payables on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Risks of entering into futures contracts (and related options) include the possibility that the market for these instruments may be illiquid and that a change in the value of the contract or option may not correlate perfectly with changes in the value of the underlying instrument. Futures contracts are exchange traded and the exchange’s clearinghouse, as counterparty to all exchange traded futures, guarantees the futures contracts against default.

Options Contracts - An option contract purchased by the Portfolio gives the Portfolio the right, but not the obligation, to buy (call) or sell (put) an underlying instrument at a fixed exercise price during a specified period. Call options written by the Portfolio gives the holder the right to buy the underlying instrument from the Portfolio at a fixed exercise price; put options written by the Portfolio give the holder the right to sell the underlying instrument to the Portfolio at a fixed exercise price.

The Portfolio may use options to hedge against changes in values of securities the Portfolio owns or expects to purchase, to maintain exposure to the broad equity markets or to enhance return. Writing puts or buying calls tend to increase the Portfolio’s exposure to the underlying instrument and writing calls or buying puts tend to decrease the Portfolio’s exposure to the underlying instrument, and can be used to hedge other Portfolio investments. For options purchased to hedge the Portfolio’s investments, the potential risk to the Portfolio is that the change in value of options contracts may not correspond perfectly to the change in value of the hedged instruments. In addition, losses may arise from changes in the value of the underlying instrument, if there is an illiquid secondary market for the option contract, or if the counterparty to the option contract is unable to perform. The Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit risk, as opposed to investment and other types of risk, in respect of purchased options is typically the premium initially paid for the option plus the market value of the option.

The purpose of inflation-capped options is to protect the buyer from inflation, above a specified rate, eroding the value of investments in inflation-linked products with a given notional exposure. Inflation-capped options are used to give downside protection to investments in inflation-linked products by establishing a floor on the value of such products.

The main risk associated with purchasing an option is that the option expires without being exercised. In this case, the option expires worthless and the premium paid for the option is considered a loss. The risk associated with writing a call option is that the Portfolio may forgo the opportunity for a profit if the market value of the underlying instrument increases and the option is exercised, requiring the Portfolio to sell the underlying instrument at a price below its market value. When the Portfolio writes a call option on a security it does not own, its exposure on such an option is theoretically unlimited. The risk in writing a put option is that the Portfolio may incur a loss if the market value of the underlying instrument decreases and the option is exercised, requiring the Portfolio to purchase the underlying instrument at a price above its market value. In addition, the Portfolio risks not being able to enter into a closing transaction for the written option as the result of an illiquid market for the option.

41

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments - continued

Purchases of put and call options are recorded as investments, the value of which are marked-to-market daily. When a purchased option expires without being exercised, the Portfolio will realize a loss equal to the premium paid. When the Portfolio enters into a closing sale transaction, the Portfolio will realize a gain or loss depending on whether the sales proceeds from the closing sale transaction are greater or less than the premium initially paid for the option. When the Portfolio exercises a put option, it will realize a gain or loss from the sale of the underlying instrument and the proceeds from such sale will be decreased by the premium originally paid for the put option. When the Portfolio exercises a call option, the cost of the security which the Portfolio purchases upon exercise will be increased by the premium originally paid for the call option.

The premium received for a written option is recorded as an asset and an equivalent liability. The liability is marked-to-market daily based on the option’s quoted market price. When a written option expires without being exercised or the Portfolio enters into a closing purchase transaction, the Portfolio realizes a gain (or loss if the cost of the closing purchase transaction exceeds the premium received when the option was sold) without regard to any unrealized gain or loss on the underlying instrument and the liability related to such option is eliminated. When a written call option is exercised, the Portfolio realizes a gain or loss, as adjusted for the premium received, from the sale of the underlying instrument. When a written put option is exercised, the premium received is offset against the amount paid for the purchase of the underlying instrument.

Swap Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into swap contracts. Swap contracts are derivatives agreements to exchange the return generated by one instrument for the return generated by another instrument. The payment streams are calculated by reference to a specified index and agreed upon notional amount. The term “specified index” includes, but is not limited to, currencies, fixed interest rates, prices and total return on interest rate indices, fixed income indices, stock indices and commodity indices (as well as amounts derived from arithmetic operations on these indices). A Portfolio will usually enter into swaps on a net basis, i.e., the two payment streams are netted out in a cash settlement on the payment date or dates specified in the instrument, with the Portfolio receiving or paying, as the case may be, only the net amount of the two payments. The Portfolio’s obligations under a swap agreement will be accrued daily (offset against any amounts owing to the Portfolio) and any accrued but unpaid net amounts owed to a swap counterparty will be covered by designating the segregation, either on its records or with the Trust’s custodian, of cash or other liquid assets, to avoid any potential leveraging of the Portfolio. The Portfolio may enter into swap transactions with counterparties that are approved by the investment adviser in accordance with guidelines established by the Board. These guidelines provide for a minimum credit rating for each counterparty and various credit enhancement techniques (for example, collateralization of amounts due from counterparties) to limit exposure to counterparties that have lower credit ratings.

An index swap is an agreement to swap cash flows on a notional amount based on changes in the values of the reference indices.

Currency Swaps: A currency swap is an agreement to exchange cash flows on a notional amount of two or more currencies based on the relative value differential among them. Such swaps may involve initial and final exchanges that correspond to the agreed upon notional amount. Currency swaps usually involve the delivery of the entire principal value of one designated currency in exchange for the other designated currency. Therefore, the entire principal value of a currency swap is subject to the risk that the other party to the swap will default on its contractual delivery obligations.

If there is a default by the counterparty, the Portfolio may have contractual remedies pursuant to the agreements related to the transaction.

Interest Rate Swaps: The Portfolio may enter into interest rate swaps and the purchase or sale of related caps and floors. The Portfolio may enter into these transactions primarily to manage its exposure to interest rates, to protect against currency fluctuations, or to preserve a return or spread on a particular investment. The Portfolio is subject to interest rate risk exposure in the normal course of pursuing its investment objectives. Because the Portfolio holds has exposure to fixed income securities, the value of these securities may decrease if interest rates rise. To help hedge against this risk and to maintain its ability to generate income at prevailing market rates, the Portfolio may enter into interest rate swap contracts. Interest rate swaps are arrangements between two parties to exchange cash flows based on a notional principal amount, to manage the Portfolio’s exposure to interest rate risk. Interest rate swap contracts are marked-to-market daily based upon quotations from market makers and the change, if any, is recorded as unrealized gain or loss. Payments received or made are recorded as realized gains or losses. The Portfolio could be exposed to credit or market risk due to unfavorable changes in the fluctuation of interest rates or if the counterparty defaults on its obligation to perform. Risks may exceed amounts recognized on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The purchase of a cap entitles the purchaser, to the extent that a specific index exceeds a predetermined interest rate, to receive payments of interest on a notional principal amount from the party selling such cap. The purchase of a floor entitles the purchaser to receive payments on a notional principal amount from the party selling such floor to the extent that a specified index falls below a predetermined interest rate or amount. The Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit risk, as opposed to investment and other types of risk, in respect of interest rate swaps is typically the discounted net value of the cash flows to be received from the counterparty over the contract’s remaining life, to the extent that amount is positive, plus the cost of entering into a similar transaction with another counterparty, if possible.

Credit Default Swaps: The Portfolio is subject to credit risk in the normal course of pursuing its investment objectives. The Portfolio may enter into credit default swaps to manage its exposure to the market or certain sectors of the market, to reduce its risk exposure to defaults of

42

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments - continued

corporate and sovereign issuers, or to create exposure to corporate or sovereign issuers to which it is not otherwise exposed. As the seller in a credit default swap contract, the Portfolio would be required to pay the par (or other agreed upon) value of a referenced debt obligation or index to the counterparty in the event of a default by a third party, such as a U.S. or foreign corporate issuer, on the debt obligation. In return, the Portfolio would receive from the counterparty an upfront or periodic stream of payments over the term of the contract provided that no event of default has occurred. If no default occurs, the Portfolio would keep the stream of payments and would have no payment obligations. An upfront payment received by the Portfolio is recorded as a liability on the books. An upfront payment made by the Portfolio is recorded as an asset on the books. As the seller, the Portfolio would be subject to investment exposure on the notional amount of the swap. The Portfolio may also purchase credit default swap contracts in order to hedge against the risk of default of debt securities held in its portfolio. This would involve the risk that the investment may expire worthless and would only generate income in the event of an actual default by the issuer of the underlying obligation (as opposed to a credit downgrade or other indication of financial instability). It would also involve credit risk—the seller may fail to satisfy its payment obligations to the Portfolio in the event of a default. The Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit risk, as opposed to investment and other types of risk, in respect of credit default swaps, either as the protection seller or as the protection buyer, is the unrealized appreciation of the contract plus, when the Portfolio is the protection buyer, any premiums paid. This risk is mitigated by collateral posted by the counterparty.

Implied credit spreads, represented in absolute terms, utilized in determining the market value of credit default swap agreements on corporate issues or sovereign issues of an emerging country as of period end are disclosed in Note 9 to the Notes to Financials Statements and serve as an indicator of the status of the payment/performance risk and represent the likelihood or risk of default for the credit derivative. The implied credit spread of a particular referenced entity or index also reflects the cost of buying/selling protection and may include upfront payments required to be made to enter into the agreement. For credit default swap agreements on asset-backed securities and credit indices, the quoted market prices and resulting values serve as the indicator of the current status of the payment/performance risk. Wider credit spreads represent a deterioration of the referenced entity’s credit soundness and a greater likelihood or risk of default or other credit event occurring as defined under the terms of the agreement.

The maximum potential amount of future payments (undiscounted) that a Portfolio as a seller of protection could be required to make under a credit default swap agreement would be an amount equal to the notional amount of the agreement. Notional amounts of all credit default swap agreements outstanding as of December 31, 2011 for which a Portfolio is the seller of protection are disclosed in Note 9 to the Notes to Financials Statements. These potential amounts would be partially offset by any recovery values of the respective referenced obligations, upfront payments received upon entering into the agreement, or net amounts received from the settlement of buy protection credit default swap agreements entered into by a Portfolio for the same referenced entity or entities.

Centrally Cleared Swaps: Certain clearinghouses currently offer clearing for limited types of derivatives transactions, principally credit derivatives. In a cleared derivative transaction, a Portfolio typically enters into the transaction with a financial institution counterparty, and performance of the transaction is effectively guaranteed by a central clearinghouse, thereby reducing or eliminating the Portfolio’s exposure to the credit risk of the original counterparty. The Portfolio typically will be required to post specified levels of margin with the clearinghouse or at the instruction of the clearinghouse; the margin required by a clearinghouse may be greater than the margin the Portfolio would be required to post in an uncleared derivative transaction. Daily changes in valuation of centrally cleared swaps, if any, are recorded as a receivable or payable for the change in value as appropriate on the Statements of Assets and Liabilities. Only a limited number of derivative transactions are currently eligible for clearing by clearinghouses.

Swap agreements are marked to market daily. The change in value, if any, is recorded as unrealized gain or loss in the Statement of Operations. A liquidation payment received or made at the termination of the swap is recorded as realized gain or loss in the Statement of Operations. Net periodic payments are included as part of realized gain (loss) on the Statement of Operations.

The swaps in which the Portfolio may engage may include instruments under which one party pays a single or periodic fixed amount(s) (or premium), and the other party pays periodic amounts based on the movement of a specified index. Swaps do not involve the delivery of securities, other underlying assets, or principal. The Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit risk, as opposed to investment and other types of risk, in respect of swaps is typically the discounted net value of the cash flows to be received from the counterparty over the contract’s remaining life to the extent that such amount is positive, plus the cost of entering into a similar transaction with another counterparty, if possible.

The use of swaps is a highly specialized activity that involves investment techniques and risks different from those associated with ordinary portfolio securities transactions. If the Adviser or Subadviser is incorrect in its forecasts of market values, interest rates, and currency exchange rates, the investment performance of the Portfolio would be less favorable than it would have been if this investment technique were not used.

43

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments - continued

At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had the following derivatives, categorized by risk exposure:

	Asset Derivatives			Liability Derivatives
Risk Exposure	Statement of Assets and Liabilities Location	Fair Value		Statement of Assets and Liabilities Location	Fair Value
Interest Rate	Swaps at market value(a)	$	42,479,395	Swaps at market value(b)	$	10,866,709
	Unrealized appreciation on centrally cleared swaps*		13,223,232	Unrealized depreciation on centrally cleared swaps*		25,244,962
	Unrealized appreciation on futures contracts**		26,860,740	Unrealized depreciation on futures contracts**		691,861
	Outstanding written options		—	Outstanding written options		7,740,056
Credit	Swaps at market value		21,001,102	Swaps at market value		45,808,084
Currency	Unrealized appreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts		49,952,628	Unrealized depreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts		26,223,142
Total		$	153,517,097		$	116,574,814

* Represents the unrealized appreciation/depreciation of centrally cleared swaps. Only the variation margin is reported within the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

** Includes cumulative appreciation/depreciation of futures contracts as reported in the notes to financial statements. Only the current day’s variation margin is reported within the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

Transactions in derivative instruments during the year ended December 31, 2011, were as follows:

Statement of Operations Location - Net Realized Gain (Loss)	Interest Rate			Credit			Currency			Total
Foreign currency transactions	$	—		$	—		$	(122,199,765	)	$	(122,199,765	)
Future contracts		78,830,192			—			—			78,830,192
Swap contracts		(137,045,853	)		22,989,466			—			(114,056,387	)
Written options contracts		(21,554,284	)		664,310			—			(20,889,974	)
	$	(79,769,945	)	$	23,653,776		$	(122,199,765	)	$	(178,315,934	)
Statement of Operations Location - Net Change in Unrealized Gain (Loss)	Interest Rate			Credit			Currency			Total
Foreign currency transactions	$	—		$	—		$	17,362,738		$	17,362,738
Future contracts		35,594,005			—			—			35,594,005
Swap contracts		15,343,296			(42,185,447	)		—			(26,842,151	)
Written options contracts		35,316,822			(34,175	)		—			35,282,647
	$	86,254,123		$	(42,219,622	)	$	17,362,738		$	61,397,239

For the year ended December 31, 2011, the average amount or number per contract outstanding for each derivative type was as follows:

Derivative Description	Average Notional or Face Amount(c)
Foreign currency transactions	$	3,206,652,797
Futures contracts long		13,022,065,977
Futures contracts short		(27,285,000	)
Swap contracts		3,385,057,324
Written options contracts		(3,361,274,475	)

(c) Averages are based on activity levels during 2011.

44

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts to buy:

Settlement Date		Counterparty	Contracts to Buy		Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
	1/4/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	138,979,739	BRL	$	74,509,979	$	74,420,208	$	89,771
	1/4/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	26,882,200	BRL		14,412,116		14,331,059		81,057
	1/4/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.	9,352,100	BRL		5,013,859		4,985,659		28,200
	1/4/2012	UBS AG	102,745,439	BRL		55,084,004		54,774,197		309,807
	2/9/2012	Barclays Bank plc	2,364,000	CAD		2,322,895		2,314,772		8,123
	2/9/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	1,485,000	CAD		1,459,179		1,443,577		15,602
	2/13/2012	Barclays Bank plc	4,300,777	CNY		682,730		672,669		10,061
	2/13/2012	Citibank N.A.	53,000,000	CNY		8,413,520		8,216,417		197,103
	2/13/2012	Citibank N.A.	71,900,000	CNY		11,413,813		11,154,723		259,090
	2/13/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	108,762,192	CNY		17,265,525		16,829,740		435,785
	6/1/2012	Barclays Bank plc	187,528,790	CNY		29,732,945		29,300,000		432,945
	6/1/2012	Barclays Bank plc	56,871,000	CNY		9,016,975		8,900,000		116,975
	6/1/2012	Barclays Bank plc	48,324,886	CNY		7,661,976		7,582,158		79,818
	6/1/2012	Citibank N.A.	26,898,900	CNY		4,264,857		4,200,000		64,857
	6/1/2012	Citibank N.A.	24,282,760	CNY		3,850,065		3,800,000		50,065
	6/1/2012	Citibank N.A.	9,456,750	CNY		1,499,381		1,500,000		(619	)
	6/1/2012	Citibank N.A.	11,351,700	CNY		1,799,828		1,800,000		(172	)
	6/1/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	33,909,400	CNY		5,376,382		5,300,000		76,382
	6/1/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	14,117,400	CNY		2,238,333		2,200,000		38,333
	6/1/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	19,251,000	CNY		3,052,272		3,000,000		52,272
	6/1/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	8,342,100	CNY		1,322,651		1,300,000		22,651
	6/1/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	15,965,000	CNY		2,531,273		2,500,000		31,273
	6/1/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	29,348,000	CNY		4,653,165		4,600,000		53,165
	6/1/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	42,153,050	CNY		6,683,424		6,700,000		(16,576	)
	6/1/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	13,871,000	CNY		2,199,266		2,200,000		(734	)
	6/1/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	18,906,000	CNY		2,997,572		3,000,000		(2,428	)
	6/1/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	46,333,100	CNY		7,346,176		7,300,000		46,176
	6/1/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.	16,607,500	CNY		2,633,142		2,600,000		33,142
	6/1/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.	24,841,050	CNY		3,938,582		3,900,000		38,582
	2/1/2013	Citibank N.A.	100,000,000	CNY		15,820,111		15,745,552		74,559
	3/8/2012	Barclays Bank plc	1,043,000	DKK		182,124		181,448		676
	1/4/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	78,168,000	EUR		101,395,603		104,356,781		(2,961,178	)
	1/4/2012	UBS AG	78,169,000	EUR		101,396,901		104,287,217		(2,890,316	)
	1/17/2012	Barclays Bank plc	4,207,000	EUR		5,457,490		5,955,619		(498,129	)
	1/17/2012	Barclays Bank plc	385,000	EUR		499,438		522,987		(23,549	)
	1/17/2012	Barclays Bank plc	1,307,000	EUR		1,695,493		1,767,166		(71,673	)
	1/17/2012	Barclays Bank plc	2,185,000	EUR		2,834,470		2,895,267		(60,797	)

45

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - continued

Settlement Date		Counterparty	Contracts to Buy		Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
	1/17/2012	Barclays Bank plc	2,890,000	EUR	$	3,749,025	$	3,761,306	$	(12,281	)
	1/17/2012	Barclays Bank plc	1,778,000	EUR		2,306,493		2,297,777		8,716
	1/17/2012	Citibank N.A.	399,000	EUR		517,599		543,873		(26,274	)
	1/17/2012	Citibank N.A.	2,875,000	EUR		3,729,566		3,874,393		(144,827	)
	1/17/2012	Deutsche Bank AG	2,591,000	EUR		3,361,150		3,592,447		(231,297	)
	1/17/2012	Deutsche Bank AG	712,000	EUR		923,635		964,838		(41,203	)
	1/17/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	554,000	EUR		718,671		771,633		(52,962	)
	1/17/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	4,997,000	EUR		6,482,310		6,868,788		(386,478	)
	1/17/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	344,000	EUR		446,251		465,711		(19,460	)
	1/17/2012	UBS AG	4,271,000	EUR		5,540,514		5,907,693		(367,179	)
	1/17/2012	UBS AG	790,000	EUR		1,024,820		1,089,671		(64,851	)
	2/2/2012	Goldman Sachs & Co.	156,337,000	EUR		202,824,102		205,159,482		(2,335,380	)
	1/4/2012	Citibank N.A.	47,776,000	GBP		74,222,409		74,192,258		30,151
	2/2/2012	Citibank N.A.	23,888,000	GBP		37,101,758		37,447,784		(346,026	)
	2/2/2012	Goldman Sachs & Co.	24,399,000	GBP		37,895,420		37,597,273		298,147
	3/12/2012	Barclays Bank plc	1,294,000	GBP		2,009,007		2,030,991		(21,984	)
	3/12/2012	Barclays Bank plc	21,779,000	GBP		33,813,111		34,026,159		(213,048	)
	3/12/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	1,082,000	GBP		1,679,865		1,689,886		(10,021	)
	1/31/2012	Citibank N.A.	147,642,200,000	IDR		16,240,074		16,272,699		(32,625	)
	7/12/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	1,937,092,000	INR		35,340,209		41,675,818		(6,335,609	)
	1/13/2012	Deutsche Bank AG	23,177,000	JPY		301,075		301,885		(810	)
	3/15/2012	Barclays Bank plc	13,715,550	MXN		977,240		982,032		(4,792	)
	3/15/2012	Barclays Bank plc	9,726,130	MXN		692,992		691,808		1,184
	4/23/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	40,383,557	MYR		12,679,008		13,314,724		(635,716	)
	3/15/2012	Citibank N.A.	168,900,000	PHP		3,837,793		3,895,744		(57,951	)
	3/15/2012	Citibank N.A.	1,197,565,000	PHP		27,211,408		27,584,130		(372,722	)
	3/15/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.	173,011,500	PHP		3,931,216		3,973,166		(41,950	)
	1/11/2012	Barclays Bank plc	127,386,100	TWD		4,207,682		4,444,735		(237,053	)
	1/26/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	19,761,250	ZAR		2,437,699		2,709,433		(271,734	)
	Net Unrealized Depreciation								$	(15,805,736	)

Open forward foreign currency exchange contracts to sell:

Settlement Date		Counterparty	Contracts to Deliver		Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
	2/23/2012	Citibank N.A.	4,822,000	AUD	$	4,914,583	$	4,765,563	$	(149,020	)
	2/23/2012	Citibank N.A.	2,395,000	AUD		2,440,984		2,393,739		(47,245	)
	2/23/2012	Citibank N.A.	2,200,000	AUD		2,242,240		2,217,725		(24,515	)
	2/23/2012	Citibank N.A.	800,000	AUD		815,360		806,445		(8,915	)

46

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - continued

Settlement Date		Counterparty	Contracts to Deliver		Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
	1/4/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	26,882,200	BRL	$	14,412,116	$	15,210,026	$	797,910
	1/4/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	138,979,739	BRL		74,509,979		74,090,915		(419,064	)
	1/4/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.	5,199,600	BRL		2,787,616		2,800,000		12,384
	1/4/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.	4,152,500	BRL		2,226,243		2,200,000		(26,243	)
	1/4/2012	UBS AG	25,365,183	BRL		13,598,811		13,580,973		(17,838	)
	1/4/2012	UBS AG	7,939,360	BRL		4,256,459		4,400,000		143,541
	1/4/2012	UBS AG	14,804,280	BRL		7,936,888		8,200,000		263,112
	1/4/2012	UBS AG	9,463,050	BRL		5,073,341		5,100,000		26,659
	1/4/2012	UBS AG	14,489,415	BRL		7,768,082		7,830,000		61,918
	1/4/2012	UBS AG	14,473,755	BRL		7,759,686		7,830,000		70,314
	1/4/2012	UBS AG	4,705,000	BRL		2,522,450		2,500,000		(22,450	)
	1/4/2012	UBS AG	4,336,650	BRL		2,324,970		2,300,000		(24,970	)
	1/4/2012	UBS AG	7,168,746	BRL		3,843,316		3,796,000		(47,316	)
	3/2/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	138,979,739	BRL		73,585,702		73,514,805		(70,897	)
	2/9/2012	Barclays Bank plc	235,266,000	CAD		231,175,242		229,802,447		(1,372,795	)
	2/9/2012	Barclays Bank plc	16,787,000	CAD		16,495,111		16,335,948		(159,163	)
	2/9/2012	Deutsche Bank AG	1,396,000	CAD		1,371,727		1,341,456		(30,271	)
	6/1/2012	Barclays Bank plc	15,373,200	CNY		2,437,442		2,400,000		(37,442	)
	6/1/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	9,628,500	CNY		1,526,612		1,500,000		(26,612	)
	6/1/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	9,637,500	CNY		1,528,039		1,500,000		(28,039	)
	6/1/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	14,052,500	CNY		2,228,043		2,200,000		(28,043	)
	6/1/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	15,318,000	CNY		2,428,690		2,400,000		(28,690	)
	6/1/2012	UBS AG	10,288,000	CNY		1,631,176		1,600,000		(31,176	)
	6/1/2012	UBS AG	17,883,600	CNY		2,835,469		2,800,000		(35,469	)
	1/3/2012	Barclays Bank plc	1,043,000	DKK		182,007		181,276		(731	)
	3/8/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	155,316,000	DKK		27,120,569		28,017,830		897,261
	1/4/2012	Goldman Sachs & Co.	156,337,000	EUR		202,792,504		205,114,144		2,321,640
	1/17/2012	Barclays Bank plc	3,680,000	EUR		4,773,845		4,980,199		206,354
	1/17/2012	Barclays Bank plc	12,992,000	EUR		16,853,747		17,437,940		584,193
	1/17/2012	Barclays Bank plc	8,423,000	EUR		10,926,656		10,961,886		35,230
	1/17/2012	Barclays Bank plc	21,654,000	EUR		28,090,443		28,305,806		215,363
	1/17/2012	Barclays Bank plc	600,000	EUR		778,344		784,312		5,968
	1/17/2012	Citibank N.A.	6,300,000	EUR		8,172,614		8,709,510		536,896
	1/17/2012	Citibank N.A.	12,029,000	EUR		15,604,504		16,078,996		474,492
	1/17/2012	Citibank N.A.	1,200,000	EUR		1,556,688		1,585,502		28,814
	1/17/2012	Citibank N.A.	15,895,000	EUR		20,619,636		21,001,301		381,665
	1/17/2012	Citibank N.A.	7,112,000	EUR		9,225,974		9,258,473		32,499
	1/17/2012	Citibank N.A.	5,757,000	EUR		7,468,213		7,494,520		26,307

47

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - continued

Settlement Date		Counterparty	Contracts to Deliver		Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
	1/17/2012	Citibank N.A.	2,157,000	EUR	$	2,798,147	$	2,981,970	$	183,823
	1/17/2012	Deutsche Bank AG	27,357,000	EUR		35,488,605		38,113,772		2,625,167
	1/17/2012	Deutsche Bank AG	13,742,000	EUR		17,826,677		18,564,961		738,284
	1/17/2012	Deutsche Bank AG	12,316,000	EUR		15,976,812		16,638,485		661,673
	1/17/2012	Deutsche Bank AG	7,752,000	EUR		10,056,207		10,158,260		102,053
	1/17/2012	Goldman Sachs & Co.	16,671,000	EUR		21,626,294		22,341,891		715,597
	1/17/2012	Goldman Sachs & Co.	700,000	EUR		908,068		915,709		7,641
	1/17/2012	Goldman Sachs & Co.	9,092,000	EUR		11,794,509		11,893,745		99,236
	1/17/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	394,896,000	EUR		512,275,033		536,930,219		24,655,186
	1/17/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	4,478,000	EUR		5,809,042		6,098,669		289,627
	1/17/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	7,469,000	EUR		9,689,088		10,063,542		374,454
	1/17/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	4,857,000	EUR		6,300,696		6,525,088		224,392
	1/17/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	6,500,000	EUR		8,432,062		8,506,661		74,599
	1/17/2012	UBS AG	8,660,000	EUR		11,234,102		11,720,834		486,732
	1/17/2012	UBS AG	7,153,000	EUR		9,279,160		9,573,761		294,601
	1/17/2012	UBS AG	18,984,000	EUR		24,626,811		24,758,781		131,970
	1/4/2012	Citibank N.A.	23,888,000	GBP		37,111,205		37,456,384		345,179
	1/4/2012	Goldman Sachs & Co.	24,399,000	GBP		37,905,069		37,606,179		(298,890	)
	3/12/2012	Barclays Bank plc	2,000	GBP		3,105		3,117		12
	3/12/2012	Deutsche Bank AG	16,600,000	GBP		25,772,425		25,761,042		(11,383	)
	3/12/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	190,746,000	GBP		296,143,796		299,151,720		3,007,924
	3/12/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	3,000,000	GBP		4,657,667		4,643,217		(14,450	)
	1/31/2012	Barclays Bank plc	12,695,000,000	IDR		1,396,401		1,413,697		17,296
	1/31/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.	14,288,077,000	IDR		1,571,633		1,581,939		10,306
	1/31/2012	UBS AG	8,811,000,000	IDR		969,176		975,208		6,032
	7/2/2012	Goldman Sachs & Co.	111,848,123,000	IDR		12,124,515		12,020,217		(104,298	)
	7/12/2012	Barclays Bank plc	1,138,247,000	INR		20,766,121		22,063,326		1,297,205
	7/12/2012	Deutsche Bank AG	285,152,000	INR		5,202,299		5,600,000		397,701
	7/12/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	234,094,000	INR		4,270,799		4,600,000		329,201
	7/12/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	120,500,000	INR		2,198,396		2,369,901		171,505
	7/12/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	159,099,000	INR		2,902,594		3,125,717		223,123
	1/30/2012	Citibank N.A.	2,886,191,386	JPY		37,501,802		37,674,804		173,002
	1/30/2012	Deutsche Bank AG	2,886,191,386	JPY		37,501,802		37,693,993		192,191
	1/30/2012	Goldman Sachs & Co.	2,460,813,884	JPY		31,974,648		32,138,094		163,446
	1/30/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	2,886,191,386	JPY		37,501,802		37,673,820		172,018
	1/30/2012	UBS AG	590,611,958	JPY		7,674,132		7,714,619		40,487
	2/6/2012	Barclays Bank plc	305,869,966	JPY		3,974,743		4,028,978		54,235
	2/6/2012	Citibank N.A.	218,260,068	JPY		2,836,263		2,874,934		38,671

48

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - continued

Settlement Date		Counterparty	Contracts to Deliver		Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
	2/6/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	305,869,966	JPY	$	3,974,743	$	4,028,846	$	54,103
	2/13/2012	Citibank N.A.	3,668,174,587	JPY		47,673,767		46,992,936		(680,831	)
	2/13/2012	Westpac Banking Corp.	2,641,825,413	JPY		34,334,726		33,795,899		(538,827	)
	2/21/2012	UBS AG	33,460,000,000	JPY		434,931,527		431,870,103		(3,061,424	)
	2/27/2012	Barclays Bank plc	1,348,117,763	JPY		17,525,560		17,535,123		9,563
	2/27/2012	Citibank N.A.	908,832,537	JPY		11,814,842		11,821,212		6,370
	2/27/2012	Deutsche Bank AG	1,348,117,763	JPY		17,525,560		17,533,070		7,510
	2/27/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	1,356,814,175	JPY		17,638,613		17,643,877		5,264
	2/27/2012	UBS AG	1,348,117,763	JPY		17,525,560		17,532,614		7,054
	3/15/2012	UBS AG	13,291,500	MXN		947,026		1,000,000		52,974
	3/15/2012	UBS AG	11,962,350	MXN		852,324		900,000		47,676
	4/23/2012	Citibank N.A.	40,383,557	MYR		12,679,008		13,047,999		368,991
	3/15/2012	Barclays Bank plc	856,376,123	PHP		19,458,819		20,034,533		575,714
	3/15/2012	Barclays Bank plc	31,200,000	PHP		708,935		727,273		18,338
	3/15/2012	Barclays Bank plc	39,788,877	PHP		904,094		926,184		22,090
	3/15/2012	Barclays Bank plc	52,100,000	PHP		1,183,831		1,211,628		27,797
	3/15/2012	Citibank N.A.	13,000,000	PHP		295,390		292,991		(2,399	)
	3/15/2012	Citibank N.A.	26,000,000	PHP		590,779		584,927		(5,852	)
	3/15/2012	Goldman Sachs & Co.	89,985,000	PHP		2,044,664		2,100,000		55,336
	3/15/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	34,816,000	PHP		791,099		800,000		8,901
	3/15/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	194,568,000	PHP		4,421,029		4,400,000		(21,029	)
	3/15/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	128,296,000	PHP		2,915,178		2,900,000		(15,178	)
	3/15/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	73,346,500	PHP		1,666,600		1,700,000		33,400
	2/10/2012	Barclays Bank plc	18,450,482	SGD		14,247,115		14,442,534		195,419
	1/11/2012	Barclays Bank plc	57,140,100	TWD		1,887,391		1,866,409		(20,982	)
	1/11/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.	39,676,000	TWD		1,310,535		1,300,000		(10,535	)
	1/11/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.	30,570,000	TWD		1,009,756		1,000,000		(9,756	)
	1/26/2012	Barclays Bank plc	322,605	ZAR		39,796		39,918		122
	1/26/2012	Goldman Sachs & Co.	17,438,645	ZAR		2,151,188		2,193,347		42,159
	1/26/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	900,000	ZAR		111,022		112,000		978
	1/26/2012	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	1,100,000	ZAR		135,694		136,806		1,112
	Net Unrealized Appreciation								$	39,535,222

AUD— Australian Dollar

BRL— Brazilian Real

CAD— Canadian Dollar

CNY— China Yuan Renminbi

DKK— Danish Krone

EUR— Euro

GBP— British Pound

IDR— Indonesian Rupiah

INR— Indian Rupee

49

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - continued

JPY— Japanese Yen

MXN— Mexican Peso

MYR— Malaysian Ringgit

PHP— Philippine Peso

SGD— Singapore Dollar

TWD— New Taiwan Dollar

ZAR— South African Rand

7. Futures Contracts

The futures contracts outstanding as of December 31, 2011 and the description and unrealized appreciation (depreciation) were as follows:

Futures Contracts - Long	Exchange	Expiration Date		Number of Contracts		Contract Amount		Valuation as of December 31, 2011		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
90 Day EuroDollar Futures	Chicago Mercantile Exchange		6/18/2012		1,674	$	415,516,759	$	415,549,575	$	32,816
90 Day EuroDollar Futures	NYSE Liffe		3/18/2013		2,041		507,114,986		506,423,125		(691,861	)
90 Day EuroDollar Futures	Chicago Mercantile Exchange		3/18/2013		7,813		1,935,601,779		1,938,600,625		2,998,846
90 Day EuroDollar Futures	Chicago Mercantile Exchange		6/17/2013		9,725		2,403,615,954		2,412,650,938		9,034,984
90 Day EuroDollar Futures	Chicago Mercantile Exchange		9/16/2013		2,844		701,184,878		705,383,100		4,198,222
90 Day EuroDollar Futures	Chicago Mercantile Exchange		12/16/2013		925		229,007,726		229,295,938		288,212
90 Day EuroDollar Futures	Chicago Mercantile Exchange		3/17/2014		1,874		460,990,641		464,142,950		3,152,309
90 Day EuroDollar Futures	Chicago Mercantile Exchange		6/16/2014		338		83,566,586		83,600,075		33,489
U.S. Treasury Note 5 Year Futures	Chicago Board of Trade		3/30/2012		7,798		957,942,689		961,164,426		3,221,737
U.S. Treasury Note 10 Year Futures	Chicago Mercantile Exchange		3/21/2012		4,213		548,553,552		552,429,625		3,876,073
U.S. Treasury Bond 30 Year Futures	Chicago Board of Trade		3/21/2012		7		989,635		1,013,687		24,052
Net Unrealized Appreciation										$	26,168,879

8. Options Written

Options written as of December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Inflation Floors

Description	Counterparty	Strike Index		Exercise Index	Expiration Date		Notional Amount			Premium			Market Value			Unrealized Appreciation
Floor - OTC CPURNSA Index	Deutsche Bank AG		215.949	Maximum of ((1+0.000%)10  - Inflation Adjustment) or 0		3/10/2020	$	(5,800,000	)	$	(43,500	)	$	(26,132	)	$	17,368
Floor - OTC CPURNSA Index	Citibank N.A.		215.949	Maximum of ((1+0.000%)10 - Inflation Adjustment) or 0		3/12/2020		(16,200,000	)		(137,080	)		(61,943	)		75,137
Floor - OTC CPURNSA Index	Citibank N.A.		216.687	Maximum of ((1+0.000%)10 - Inflation Adjustment) or 0		4/7/2020		(38,800,000	)		(346,040	)		(153,931	)		192,109
Floor - OTC CPURNSA Index	Citibank N.A.		217.965	Maximum of ((1+0.000%)10 - Inflation Adjustment) or 0		9/29/2020		(17,500,000	)		(225,750	)		(73,698	)		152,052

50

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

8. Options Written - continued

Description	Counterparty	Strike Index		Exercise Index	Expiration Date		Notional Amount			Premium			Market Value			Unrealized Appreciation
Floor - OTC CPURNSA Index	Deutsche Bank AG		218.011	Maximum of ((1+0.000%)10 - Inflation Adjustment) or 0		10/13/2020		(18,000,000	)		(176,400	)		(85,870	)		90,530
Total										$	(928,770	)	$	(401,574	)	$	527,196

CPURNSA—Consumer Price All Urban Non-Seasonally Adjusted.

Interest Rate Swaptions

Description	Counterparty	Floating Rate Index	Pay/Receive Floating Rate	Exercise Rate			Expiration Date	Notional Amount			Premium			Market Value			Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
Put - OTC - 1-Year Interest Rate Swap	Goldman Sachs & Co.	3-Month USD-LIBOR	Pay		1.000	%	11/19/2012	$	(139,600,000	)	$	(796,459	)	$	(188,586	)	$	607,873
Put - OTC - 1-Year Interest Rate Swap	Deutsche Bank AG	3-Month USD-LIBOR	Pay		1.750	%	7/11/2013		(704,400,000	)		(3,307,719	)		(955,871	)		2,351,848
Put - OTC - 2-Year Interest Rate Swap	Citibank N.A.	3-Month USD-LIBOR	Pay		2.250	%	9/24/2012		(23,000,000	)		(156,689	)		(9,138	)		147,551
Put - OTC - 2-Year Interest Rate Swap	Goldman Sachs & Co.	3-Month USD-LIBOR	Pay		2.250	%	9/24/2012		(89,300,000	)		(529,847	)		(35,479	)		494,368
Put - OTC - 2-Year Interest Rate Swap	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.	3-Month USD-LIBOR	Pay		2.250	%	9/24/2012		(196,500,000	)		(1,247,163	)		(78,069	)		1,169,094
Put - OTC - 2-Year Interest Rate Swap	Citibank N.A.	3-Month USD-LIBOR	Pay		0.915	%	11/14/2012		(51,000,000	)		(229,500	)		(179,857	)		49,643
Put - OTC - 2-Year Interest Rate Swap	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.	3-Month USD-LIBOR	Pay		0.915	%	11/14/2012		(353,800,000	)		(982,197	)		(1,247,711	)		(265,514	)
Put - OTC - 2-Year Interest Rate Swap	Deutsche Bank AG	3-Month USD-LIBOR	Pay		1.200	%	7/11/2013		(104,900,000	)		(740,358	)		(590,073	)		150,285
Put - OTC - 3-Year Interest Rate Swap	Barclays Bank plc	3-Month USD-LIBOR	Pay		3.000	%	6/18/2012		(50,200,000	)		(448,988	)		(1,626	)		447,362
Put - OTC - 3-Year Interest Rate Swap	Citibank N.A.	3-Month USD-LIBOR	Pay		3.000	%	6/18/2012		(189,200,000	)		(2,064,210	)		(6,130	)		2,058,080
Put - OTC - 3-Year Interest Rate Swap	Credit Suisse International	3-Month USD-LIBOR	Pay		3.000	%	6/18/2012		(115,800,000	)		(732,435	)		(3,752	)		728,683
Put - OTC - 3-Year Interest Rate Swap	Deutsche Bank AG	3-Month USD-LIBOR	Pay		2.750	%	6/18/2012		(240,800,000	)		(2,499,648	)		(14,857	)		2,484,791
Put - OTC - 3-Year Interest Rate Swap	Deutsche Bank AG	3-Month USD-LIBOR	Pay		3.000	%	6/18/2012		(72,500,000	)		(788,856	)		(2,348	)		786,508
Put - OTC - 3-Year Interest Rate Swap	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.	3-Month USD-LIBOR	Pay		3.000	%	6/18/2012		(167,600,000	)		(1,750,744	)		(5,430	)		1,745,314
Put - OTC - 3-Year Interest Rate Swap	Deutsche Bank AG	3-Month USD-LIBOR	Pay		1.000	%	8/13/2012		(39,300,000	)		(403,807	)		(197,416	)		206,391
Put - OTC - 5-Year Interest Rate Swap	Citibank N.A.	3-Month USD-LIBOR	Pay		3.250	%	7/16/2012		(99,100,000	)		(2,450,082	)		(15,648	)		2,434,434
Put - OTC - 5-Year Interest Rate Swap	Citibank N.A.	3-Month USD-LIBOR	Pay		1.700	%	8/13/2012		(408,200,000	)		(7,041,449	)		(2,672,975	)		4,368,474
Put - OTC - 5-Year Interest Rate Swap	Deutsche Bank AG	3-Month USD-LIBOR	Pay		1.700	%	8/13/2012		(156,600,000	)		(2,169,887	)		(1,025,449	)		1,144,438
Put - OTC - 10-Year Interest Rate Swap	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.	3-Month USD-LIBOR	Pay		10.000	%	7/10/2012		(40,200,000	)		(242,205	)		(4	)		242,201
Total											$	(28,582,243	)	$	(7,230,419	)	$	21,351,824

51

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

8. Options Written - continued

Options on Exchange-Traded Futures Contracts

Description	Exercise Price		Expiration Date		# of Contracts			Premium			Market Value			Unrealized Appreciation
Put - CME 90-Day Eurodollar March Futures	$	99		3/19/2012		(1,330	)	$	(1,059,324	)	$	(108,063	)	$	951,261

The Portfolio transactions in options written during the period ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Call Options	Notional Amount			Premium Received
Options outstanding December 31, 2010		736,201,887		$	6,557,029
Options written		1,903,901,749			5,681,699
Options bought back		(1,211,603,636	)		(5,063,626	)
Options expired		(1,428,500,000	)		(7,175,102	)
Options outstanding December 31, 2011		—		$	—
Put Options	Notional Amount			Premium Received
Options outstanding December 31, 2010		1,882,301,887		$	17,650,522
Options written		3,197,502,942			21,043,528
Options bought back		(951,401,612	)		(3,029,300	)
Options expired		(790,101,887	)		(5,094,413	)
Options outstanding December 31, 2011		3,338,301,330		$	30,570,337

9. Reverse Repurchase Agreements

Reverse repurchase agreements as of December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Counterparty	Interest Rate			Settlement Date		Maturity Date	Par Value			Closing Amount
Deutsche Bank AG		(1.25	%)		12/14/2011	12/31/2013		USD	1,008,000	$	1,008,000
JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		0.15	%		11/3/2011	1/13/2012		USD	12,756,500		12,756,500
Total										$	13,764,500

Securities pledged as collateral against open reverse repurchase agreements are noted in the Schedule of Investments.

USD—United States Dollar

10. Swap Agreements

Open OTC interest rate swap agreements at December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Pay/Receive Floating Rate	Floating Rate Index	Fixed Rate			Maturity Date		Counterparty	Notional Amount			Market Value			Upfront Premium Paid/ (Received)			Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
Pay	AUD 6MBB		4.250	%		6/15/2017	Barclays Bank plc		AUD	2,800,000	$	(9,392	)	$	(2,754	)	$	(6,638	)
Pay	AUD 6MBB		5.000	%		6/15/2017	Citibank N.A.		AUD	5,800,000		176,089			43,670			132,419
Pay	AUD 6MBB		4.250	%		6/15/2017	Deutsche Bank AG		AUD	4,200,000		(14,089	)		(2,301	)		(11,788	)
Pay	AUD 6MBB		5.000	%		6/15/2017	Deutsche Bank AG		AUD	8,600,000		261,097			67,697			193,400
Pay	AUD 6MBB		5.000	%		6/15/2017	Goldman Sachs & Co.		AUD	62,600,000		1,900,541			237,387			1,663,154

52

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

10. Swap Agreements - continued

Pay/Receive Floating Rate	Floating Rate Index	Fixed Rate			Maturity Date		Counterparty	Notional Amount			Market Value			Upfront Premium Paid/ (Received)			Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
Pay	AUD 6MBB		5.250	%		6/15/2022	Citibank N.A.		AUD	16,300,000	$	818,509		$	(116,321	)	$	934,830
Pay	EUR 6ME		2.500	%		9/21/2018	Barclays Bank plc		EUR	8,300,000		321,107			(139,861	)		460,968
Pay	EUR 6ME		3.000	%		9/21/2021	Barclays Bank plc		EUR	24,400,000		1,773,951			231,605			1,542,346
Pay	EUR 6ME		3.500	%		9/21/2021	Barclays Bank plc		EUR	21,800,000		2,833,168			283,309			2,549,859
Pay	EUR 6ME		2.500	%		3/21/2022	Barclays Bank plc		EUR	24,100,000		218,145			4,592			213,553
Pay	GBP 6ML		3.000	%		3/21/2022	Barclays Bank plc		GBP	133,800,000		12,594,582			169,565			12,425,017
Pay	MXN TIIE		5.600	%		9/6/2016	Barclays Bank plc		MXN	313,000,000		(191,521	)		145,041			(336,562	)
Pay	MXN TIIE		5.600	%		9/6/2016	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		MXN	37,200,000		(22,762	)		7,444			(30,206	)
Pay	MXN TIIE		6.350	%		6/2/2021	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		MXN	30,900,000		(60,106	)		7,317			(67,423	)
Receive	USD 3ML		4.250	%		6/15/2041	Goldman Sachs & Co.		USD	6,200,000		(2,133,507	)		124,000			(2,257,507	)
Receive	USD 3ML		4.000	%		12/21/2041	Deutsche Bank AG		USD	8,700,000		(2,559,951	)		(34,800	)		(2,525,151	)
Pay	USD FED		0.500	%		9/19/2013	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		USD	137,900,000		460,986			(179,270	)		640,256
Pay	USD FED		1.000	%		9/19/2014	BNP Paribas S.A.		USD	54,600,000		793,092			(19,110	)		812,202
Pay	USD FED		0.500	%		9/19/2014	Goldman Sachs & Co.		USD	27,600,000		122,309			(117,852	)		240,161
Pay	BRL CDI		12.540	%		1/2/2012	Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.		BRL	80,800,000		2,476,909			(443,165	)		2,920,074
Pay	BRL CDI		10.115	%		1/2/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		BRL	295,300,000		(5,875,381	)		(7,355,900	)		1,480,519
Pay	BRL CDI		12.540	%		1/2/2012	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		BRL	90,500,000		2,774,261			(503,219	)		3,277,480
Pay	BRL CDI		12.455	%		1/2/2013	Barclays Bank plc		BRL	18,800,000		234,708			9,206			225,502
Pay	BRL CDI		11.890	%		1/2/2013	Goldman Sachs & Co.		BRL	52,700,000		885,860			47,758			838,102
Pay	BRL CDI		11.930	%		1/2/2013	Goldman Sachs & Co.		BRL	63,700,000		1,083,814			(91,373	)		1,175,187
Pay	BRL CDI		12.070	%		1/2/2013	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		BRL	64,200,000		953,289			150,874			802,415
Pay	BRL CDI		12.170	%		1/2/2013	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		BRL	43,900,000		902,004			158,550			743,454
Pay	BRL CDI		10.455	%		1/2/2013	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		BRL	20,000,000		14,515			(10,421	)		24,936
Pay	BRL CDI		11.980	%		1/2/2013	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		BRL	31,600,000		560,243			49,229			511,014
Pay	BRL CDI		12.500	%		1/2/2013	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		BRL	39,400,000		505,009			29,991			475,018
Pay	BRL CDI		12.590	%		1/2/2013	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		BRL	321,000,000		6,827,211			289,533			6,537,678
Pay	BRL CDI		10.605	%		1/2/2013	UBS AG		BRL	30,800,000		52,441			—			52,441
Pay	BRL CDI		10.830	%		1/2/2014	Barclays Bank plc		BRL	9,300,000		31,485			6,125			25,360
Pay	BRL CDI		11.990	%		1/2/2014	Barclays Bank plc		BRL	19,400,000		395,216			86,039			309,177
Pay	BRL CDI		12.650	%		1/2/2014	Goldman Sachs & Co.		BRL	23,900,000		750,225			192,551			557,674
Pay	BRL CDI		10.870	%		1/2/2014	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		BRL	15,500,000		58,318			—			58,318
Pay	BRL CDI		10.580	%		1/2/2014	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		BRL	59,500,000		59,211			(109,697	)		168,908
Pay	BRL CDI		11.670	%		1/2/2014	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		BRL	27,600,000		294,735			10,991			283,744
Pay	BRL CDI		11.890	%		1/2/2014	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		BRL	38,000,000		617,824			(3,526	)		621,350
Pay	BRL CDI		12.510	%		1/2/2014	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		BRL	3,400,000		99,725			15,642			84,083
Pay	BRL CDI		12.540	%		1/2/2014	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		BRL	31,900,000		593,435			(21,667	)		615,102
Pay	BRL CDI		10.770	%		1/2/2014	UBS AG		BRL	12,600,000		35,381			(6,035	)		41,416
Total											$	31,612,686		$	(6,789,156	)	$	38,401,842

53

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

10. Swap Agreements - continued

Open centrally cleared swap agreements at December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Pay/Receive Floating Rate	Floating Rate Index	Fixed Rate			Maturity Date		Notional Amount			Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
Pay	EUR 6ME		3.500	%		9/21/2021		EUR	59,400,000	$	1,423,138
Pay	EUR 6ME		3.650	%		9/21/2021		EUR	11,000,000		305,434
Pay	EUR 6ME		2.500	%		3/21/2022		EUR	191,900,000		6,180,353
Pay	EUR 6ME		2.750	%		3/21/2022		EUR	81,600,000		1,968,724
Receive	EUR 6ME		3.000	%		3/21/2022		EUR	73,600,000		1,329,481
Pay	EUR 6ME		2.500	%		3/21/2022		EUR	62,600,000		2,016,102
Pay	USD 3ML		4.000	%		12/21/2014		USD	57,800,000		(4,917,059	)
Receive	USD 3ML		4.250	%		6/15/2041		USD	311,700,000		(18,055,058	)
Receive	USD 3ML		4.250	%		6/15/2041		USD	24,200,000		(2,272,845	)
Total										$	(12,021,730	)

Open credit default swaps at December 31, 2011 were as follows:

OTC Credit default swaps on corporate and sovereign issuers - Buy Protection (a)

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal (Pay) Rate			Maturity Date		Counterparty	Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2011(b)			Notional Amount		Market Value			Upfront Premium Paid/ (Received)		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
CNA Financial Corp. 5.850%, due 12/15/2014		(0.630	%)		12/20/2014	Bank of America N.A.		1.658	%		5,000,000	$	149,133		$	—	$	149,133
Con-way, Inc. 7.250%, due 1/15/2018		(1.834	%)		3/20/2018	Bank of America N.A.		2.914	%		10,000,000		629,835			—		629,835
Liberty Mutual Group, Inc. 5.750%, due 3/15/2014		(0.680	%)		3/20/2014	Bank of America N.A.		2.143	%		5,750,000		208,335			—		208,335
Limited Brands, Inc. 6.900%, due 7/15/2017		(2.290	%)		9/20/2017	Bank of America N.A.		2.171	%		10,000,000		(5,398	)		—		(5,398	)
Limited Brands, Inc. 6.900%, due 7/15/2017		(3.113	%)		9/20/2017	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		2.171	%		5,000,000		(217,242	)		—		(217,242	)
Pearson Dollar Finance plc 5.700%, due 6/1/2014		(0.830	%)		6/20/2014	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		0.285	%		5,000,000		(64,118	)		—		(64,118	)
Pearson Dollar Finance plc 5.700%, due 6/1/2014		(0.760	%)		6/20/2014	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		0.285	%		8,500,000		(94,304	)		—		(94,304	)
R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co. 4.950%, due 4/01/2014		(1.030	%)		6/20/2014	Bank of America N.A.		5.080	%		6,200,000		613,887			—		613,887
Rohm & Haas Co. 6.000%, due 9/15/2017		(0.423	%)		9/20/2017	Bank of America N.A.		0.374	%		8,500,000		(32,842	)		—		(32,842	)
Total												$	1,187,286		$	—	$	1,187,286

54

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

10. Swap Agreements - continued

OTC Credit default swaps on corporate and sovereign issues - Sell Protection (d)

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal (Pay) Rate			Maturity Date		Counterparty	Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2011(b)			Notional Amount(c)		Market Value			Upfront Premium Paid/ (Received)			Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
AIG, Inc. 6.250%, due 5/1/2036		1.000	%		12/20/2020	Goldman Sachs & Co.		4.880	%		2,700,000	$	(609,900	)	$	(580,817	)	$	(29,083	)
AIG, Inc. 6.250%, due 5/1/2036		1.000	%		12/20/2020	UBS AG		4.880	%		100,000		(22,589	)		(22,065	)		(524	)
Ally Financial, Inc. 8.300%, due 2/12/2015		5.000	%		12/20/2016	Deutsche Bank AG		6.349	%		23,000,000		(1,213,667	)		(891,296	)		(322,371	)
ArcelorMittal 6.125% due 6/1/2018		1.000	%		6/20/2016	Credit Suisse International		5.365	%		4,400,000		(694,261	)		(221,992	)		(472,269	)
Berkshire Hathaway Finance Corp. 4.625%, due 10/15/2013		1.000	%		3/20/2015	Goldman Sachs & Co.		1.453	%		3,100,000		(44,681	)		(54,777	)		10,096
Berkshire Hathaway Finance Corp. 4.625%, due 10/15/2013		1.000	%		3/20/2016	Citibank N.A.		1.680	%		900,000		(23,046	)		(10,165	)		(12,881	)
Brazilian Government International Bond 12.250%, due 3/6/2030		1.000	%		12/20/2012	Barclays Bank plc		0.786	%		4,700,000		10,858			7,188			3,670
Brazilian Government International Bond 12.250%, due 3/6/2030		1.000	%		6/20/2015	Citibank N.A.		1.292	%		11,700,000		(120,909	)		(327,293	)		206,384
Brazilian Government International Bond 12.250%, due 3/6/2030		1.000	%		6/20/2015	Deutsche Bank AG		1.294	%		6,100,000		(63,038	)		(66,949	)		3,911
Brazilian Government International Bond 12.250%, due 3/6/2030		1.000	%		6/20/2015	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		1.294	%		12,700,000		(131,243	)		(139,386	)		8,143
Brazilian Government International Bond 12.250%, due 3/6/2030		1.000	%		9/20/2015	Citibank N.A.		1.337	%		1,200,000		(15,167	)		(18,832	)		3,665
Brazilian Government International Bond 12.250%, due 3/6/2030		1.000	%		9/20/2015	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		1.337	%		4,100,000		(51,821	)		(41,229	)		(10,592	)
Brazilian Government International Bond 12.250%, due 3/6/2030		1.000	%		9/20/2015	UBS AG		1.337	%		1,600,000		(20,223	)		(15,139	)		(5,084	)
Brazilian Government International Bond 12.250%, due 3/6/2030		1.000	%		12/20/2015	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		1.376	%		37,100,000		(552,598	)		(214,047	)		(338,551	)
Brazilian Government International Bond 12.250%, due 3/6/2030		1.000	%		3/20/2016	Citibank N.A.		1.406	%		14,800,000		(253,478	)		(280,796	)		27,318
Brazilian Government International Bond 12.250%, due 3/6/2030		1.000	%		3/20/2016	Deutsche Bank AG		1.410	%		25,000,000		(428,174	)		(146,458	)		(281,716	)
Brazilian Government International Bond 12.250%, due 3/6/2030		1.000	%		3/20/2016	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		1.410	%		25,000,000		(428,174	)		(146,458	)		(281,716	)

55

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

10. Swap Agreements - continued

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal (Pay) Rate			Maturity Date		Counterparty	Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2011(b)			Notional Amount(c)		Market Value			Upfront Premium Paid/ (Received)			Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
Brazilian Government International Bond 12.250% due 3/6/2030		1.000	%		6/20/2016	Citibank N.A.		1.469	%		19,300,000	$	(393,960	)	$	(65,160	)	$	(328,800	)
Brazilian Government International Bond 12.250% due 3/6/2030		1.000	%		6/20/2016	Deutsche Bank AG		1.469	%		11,000,000		(224,537	)		(36,869	)		(187,668	)
Brazilian Government International Bond 12.250%, due 3/6/2030		1.000	%		9/20/2016	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		1.512	%		5,900,000		(139,554	)		(34,458	)		(105,096	)
Brazilian Government International Bond 12.250%, due 3/6/2030		1.000	%		12/20/2016	Barclays Bank plc		1.568	%		31,100,000		(833,956	)		(783,302	)		(50,654	)
Brazilian Government International Bond 12.250%, due 3/6/2030		1.000	%		9/20/2021	Barclays Bank plc		1.871	%		5,000,000		(357,895	)		(295,327	)		(62,568	)
China Government International Bond 4.750%, due 10/29/2013		1.000	%		3/20/2015	Deutsche Bank AG		1.173	%		15,000,000		(40,979	)		85,576			(126,555	)
China Government International Bond 4.750%, due 10/29/2013		1.000	%		3/20/2016	Barclays Bank plc		1.249	%		1,200,000		(14,078	)		14,340			(28,418	)
China Government International Bond 4.750%, due 10/29/2013		1.000	%		3/20/2016	BNP Paribas S.A.		1.249	%		600,000		(7,039	)		7,258			(14,297	)
China Government International Bond 4.750% due 10/29/2013		1.000	%		6/20/2016	Citibank N.A.		1.315	%		13,400,000		(200,122	)		141,012			(341,134	)
China Government International Bond 4.750% due 10/29/2013		1.000	%		6/20/2016	Deutsche Bank AG		1.315	%		3,600,000		(53,764	)		34,343			(88,107	)
China Government International Bond 4.750% due 10/29/2013		1.000	%		6/20/2016	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		1.332	%		11,700,000		(174,734	)		125,946			(300,680	)
China Government International Bond 4.750% due 10/29/2013		1.000	%		9/20/2016	Deutsche Bank AG		1.373	%		2,200,000		(39,792	)		12,154			(51,946	)
China Government International Bond 4.750%, due 10/29/2013		1.000	%		9/20/2016	Goldman Sachs & Co.		1.373	%		800,000		(14,470	)		4,287			(18,757	)
China Government International Bond 4.750% due 10/29/2013		1.000	%		9/20/2016	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		1.373	%		6,400,000		(115,760	)		38,707			(154,467	)
China Government International Bond 4.750% due 10/29/2013		1.000	%		9/20/2016	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		1.385	%		2,400,000		(43,410	)		12,238			(55,648	)
China Government International Bond 4.750% due 10/29/2013		1.000	%		9/20/2016	UBS AG		1.385	%		700,000		(12,661	)		3,634			(16,295	)

56

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

10. Swap Agreements - continued

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal (Pay) Rate			Maturity Date		Counterparty	Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2011(b)			Notional Amount(c)		Market Value			Upfront Premium Paid/ (Received)			Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
Egypt Government International Bond 5.750%, due 4/29/2020		1.000	%		3/20/2016	Deutsche Bank AG		6.230	%		18,400,000	$	(3,419,338	)	$	(1,946,383	)	$	(1,472,955	)
Egypt Government International Bond 5.750%, due 4/29/2020		1.000	%		3/20/2016	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		6.230	%		3,600,000		(669,001	)		(443,014	)		(225,987	)
General Electric Capital Corp. 5.625%, due 9/15/2017		6.950	%		3/20/2013	Citibank N.A.		1.663	%		375,000		24,239			—			24,239
General Electric Capital Corp 5.625%, due 9/15/2017		4.000	%		12/20/2013	Citibank N.A.		1.947	%		3,600,000		143,307			—			143,307
General Electric Capital Corp. 5.625%, due 9/15/2017		4.000	%		12/20/2013	Citibank N.A.		1.947	%		20,800,000		827,996			—			827,996
General Electric Capital Corp. 5.625%, due 9/15/2017		4.200	%		12/20/2013	Citibank N.A.		1.947	%		21,900,000		956,256			—			956,256
General Electric Capital Corp. 5.625%, due 9/15/2017		4.325	%		12/20/2013	Citibank N.A.		1.947	%		10,200,000		469,969			—			469,969
General Electric Capital Corp. 5.625%, due 9/15/2017		4.850	%		12/20/2013	Citibank N.A.		1.947	%		9,100,000		511,424			—			511,424
General Electric Capital Corp. 5.625%, due 9/15/2017		4.875	%		12/20/2013	Citibank N.A.		1.947	%		3,100,000		175,716			—			175,716
General Electric Capital Corp. 5.625%, due 9/15/2017		1.000	%		12/20/2015	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		2.358	%		13,500,000		(669,992	)		(264,491	)		(405,501	)
Government of France 4.250%, due 4/25/2019		0.250	%		9/20/2015	UBS AG		1.931	%		1,400,000		(84,279	)		(37,101	)		(47,178	)
Government of France 4.250%, due 4/25/2019		0.250	%		3/20/2016	Deutsche Bank AG		1.978	%		7,200,000		(506,360	)		(291,432	)		(214,928	)
Government of France 4.250%, due 4/25/2019		0.250	%		3/20/2016	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		1.978	%		1,600,000		(112,524	)		(54,485	)		(58,039	)
Government of France 4.250%, due 4/25/2019		0.250	%		3/20/2016	UBS AG		1.978	%		2,500,000		(175,819	)		(101,149	)		(74,670	)
Government of France 4.250% due 4/25/2019		0.250	%		6/20/2016	Goldman Sachs & Co.		2.027	%		26,100,000		(1,987,727	)		(681,657	)		(1,306,070	)
Government of France 4.250%, due 4/25/2019		0.250	%		9/20/2016	Barclays Bank plc		2.070	%		2,900,000		(237,461	)		(177,319	)		(60,142	)
Government of France 4.250%, due 4/25/2019		0.250	%		9/20/2016	Deutsche Bank AG		2.097	%		24,400,000		(1,997,945	)		(1,906,816	)		(91,129	)
Government of France 4.250%, due 4/25/2019		0.250	%		9/20/2016	Goldman Sachs & Co.		2.097	%		3,700,000		(302,967	)		(187,727	)		(115,240	)
Government of France 4.250%, due 4/25/2019		0.250	%		9/20/2016	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		2.070	%		3,600,000		(294,779	)		(169,989	)		(124,790	)
Government of France 4.250%, due 4/25/2019		0.250	%		9/20/2016	UBS AG		0.609	%		600,000		(49,130	)		(31,822	)		(17,308	)
Government of France 4.250%, due 4/25/2019		0.250	%		12/20/2016	Goldman Sachs & Co.		2.138	%		15,200,000		(1,329,143	)		(1,136,275	)		(192,868	)
Government of South Korea 4.875% due 9/22/2014		1.000	%		6/20/2016	Deutsche Bank AG		1.481	%		3,100,000		(66,084	)		1,476			(67,560	)

57

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

10. Swap Agreements - continued

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal (Pay) Rate			Maturity Date		Counterparty	Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2011(b)			Notional Amount(c)		Market Value			Upfront Premium Paid/ (Received)			Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
Government of South Korea 4.875% due 9/22/2014		1.000	%		6/20/2016	Deutsche Bank AG		1.481	%		2,000,000	$	(42,635	)	$	1,429		$	(44,064	)
Government of South Korea 4.875%, due 9/22/2014		1.000	%		9/20/2016	UBS AG		1.552	%		8,100,000		(195,885	)		—			(195,885	)
Japanese Government Bond 2.000%, due 3/21/2022		1.000	%		12/20/2015	Goldman Sachs & Co.		1.260	%		6,700,000		(56,443	)		163,889			(220,332	)
Japanese Government Bond 2.000%, due 3/21/2022		1.000	%		3/20/2016	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		1.254	%		4,300,000		(44,445	)		37,798			(82,243	)
Mexico Government International Bond 5.950%, due 3/19/2019		1.000	%		3/20/2016	Citibank N.A.		1.356	%		7,200,000		(106,051	)		(130,608	)		24,557
Mexico Government International Bond 7.500%, due 4/8/2033		1.000	%		3/20/2015	Citibank N.A.		1.179	%		4,300,000		(23,446	)		(98,727	)		75,281
Mexico Government International Bond 7.500%, due 4/8/2033		1.000	%		3/20/2015	Deutsche Bank AG		1.179	%		6,400,000		(34,897	)		(146,943	)		112,046
Mexico Government International Bond 7.500%, due 4/8/2033		1.000	%		9/20/2015	Citibank N.A.		1.269	%		1,900,000		(19,316	)		(28,651	)		9,335
Mexico Government International Bond 7.500%, due 4/8/2033		1.000	%		9/20/2015	UBS AG		1.269	%		600,000		(6,100	)		(8,488	)		2,388
Mexico Government International Bond 7.500%, due 4/8/2033		1.000	%		3/20/2016	Barclays Bank plc		1.356	%		31,800,000		(468,394	)		(244,359	)		(224,035	)
Mexico Government International Bond 7.500%, due 4/8/2033		1.000	%		3/20/2016	Deutsche Bank AG		1.350	%		20,600,000		(303,425	)		(151,130	)		(152,295	)
Mexico Government International Bond 7.500% due 4/8/2033		1.000	%		6/20/2016	Citibank N.A.		1.403	%		10,000,000		(176,366	)		(21,564	)		(154,802	)
Mexico Government International Bond 7.500%, due 4/8/2033		1.000	%		3/20/2021	Barclays Bank plc		1.790	%		24,600,000		(1,516,297	)		(1,177,460	)		(338,837	)
Mexico Government International Bond 7.500%, due 4/8/2033		1.000	%		9/20/2016	Goldman Sachs & Co.		1.449	%		4,600,000		(94,327	)		(21,933	)		(72,394	)
Mexico Government International Bond 7.500%, due 4/8/2033		1.000	%		9/20/2016	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		1.449	%		9,400,000		(192,756	)		(40,540	)		(152,216	)
Mexico Government International Bond 7.500%, due 4/8/2033		1.000	%		9/20/2016	UBS AG		1.451	%		4,100,000		(84,074	)		(17,990	)		(66,084	)
Morgan Stanley 6.600%, due 4/01/2012		1.000	%		9/20/2012	Barclays Bank plc		2.096	%		800,000		(21,131	)		(15,738	)		(5,393	)
Republic of Deutschland 6.000%, due 6/20/2016		0.250	%		12/20/2016	Citibank N.A.		0.980	%		4,800,000		(169,125	)		(190,069	)		20,944

58

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

10. Swap Agreements - continued

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal (Pay) Rate			Maturity Date		Counterparty	Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2011(b)			Notional Amount(c)		Market Value			Upfront Premium Paid/ (Received)			Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
Republic of Deutschland 6.000%, due 6/20/2016		0.250	%		12/20/2016	Goldman Sachs & Co.		0.980	%		9,600,000	$	(338,250	)	$	(377,857	)	$	39,607
Republic of Indonesia 6.750%, due 3/10/2014		1.000	%		9/20/2015	Citibank N.A.		1.740	%		1,400,000		(36,117	)		(31,728	)		(4,389	)
Republic of Indonesia 6.750% due 3/10/2014		1.000	%		6/20/2016	Citibank N.A.		1.924	%		4,200,000		(162,620	)		(77,852	)		(84,768	)
Republic of Indonesia 6.750% due 3/10/2014		1.000	%		6/20/2016	Citibank N.A.		1.924	%		1,700,000		(65,822	)		(32,306	)		(33,516	)
Republic of Indonesia 6.750% due 3/10/2014		1.000	%		6/20/2021	UBS AG		2.486	%		1,700,000		(187,533	)		(124,288	)		(63,245	)
Republic of Indonesia 7.250% due 4/20/2015		1.000	%		6/20/2016	Barclays Bank plc		1.924	%		5,000,000		(193,595	)		(78,629	)		(114,966	)
Republic of Indonesia 7.250% due 4/20/2015		1.000	%		6/20/2016	Barclays Bank plc		1.924	%		5,600,000		(216,826	)		(89,360	)		(127,466	)
Republic of Indonesia 7.250%, due 4/20/2015		1.000	%		9/20/2016	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		1.971	%		5,900,000		(259,188	)		(87,543	)		(171,645	)
Republic of Indonesia 7.250%, due 4/20/2015		1.000	%		9/20/2016	UBS AG		1.971	%		2,600,000		(114,218	)		(41,034	)		(73,184	)
Republic of Indonesia 7.250% due 4/20/2015		1.000	%		6/20/2021	Citibank N.A.		2.405	%		3,400,000		(375,065	)		(243,711	)		(131,354	)
Republic of Italy 6.875%, due 9/27/2023		1.000	%		3/20/2016	Barclays Bank plc		4.924	%		8,300,000		(1,134,414	)		(271,979	)		(862,435	)
Republic of Italy 6.875%, due 9/27/2023		1.000	%		3/20/2016	Barclays Bank plc		4.890	%		4,000,000		(546,706	)		(155,679	)		(391,027	)
Republic of Italy 6.875%, due 9/27/2023		1.000	%		3/20/2016	Goldman Sachs & Co.		4.890	%		1,300,000		(177,679	)		(50,014	)		(127,665	)
Republic of Italy 6.875%, due 9/27/2023		1.000	%		3/20/2016	Goldman Sachs & Co.		4.890	%		20,600,000		(2,815,534	)		(746,548	)		(2,068,986	)
Republic of Italy 6.875%, due 9/27/2023		1.000	%		3/20/2016	Goldman Sachs & Co.		4.890	%		24,500,000		(3,348,572	)		(813,650	)		(2,534,922	)
Republic of Italy 6.875%, due 9/27/2023		1.000	%		3/20/2016	UBS AG		4.890	%		11,300,000		(1,544,442	)		(1,466,978	)		(77,464	)
Republic of Italy 6.875% due 9/27/2023		1.000	%		6/20/2016	Deutsche Bank AG		4.901	%		7,900,000		(1,127,823	)		(203,582	)		(924,241	)
Republic of Italy 6.875% due 9/27/2023		1.000	%		6/20/2016	Goldman Sachs & Co.		4.901	%		3,000,000		(428,287	)		(59,111	)		(369,176	)
Republic of Kazakhstan		1.000	%		3/20/2016	Citibank N.A.		2.870	%		1,200,000		(88,330	)		(34,632	)		(53,698	)
Republic of Kazakhstan		1.000	%		3/20/2016	Deutsche Bank AG		2.870	%		1,200,000		(88,330	)		(36,299	)		(52,031	)
Russian Federation 7.500%, due 3/31/2030		1.000	%		12/20/2012	Barclays Bank plc		1.500	%		13,000,000		(71,383	)		(179,815	)		108,432
Russian Federation 7.500%, due 3/31/2030		1.000	%		12/20/2012	Citibank N.A.		1.569	%		12,000,000		(65,892	)		(165,983	)		100,091
Spanish Government Bond 5.500%, due 7/30/2017		1.000	%		3/20/2016	Goldman Sachs & Co.		3.764	%		26,400,000		(2,665,978	)		(1,632,936	)		(1,033,042	)
Spanish Government Bond 5.500%, due 7/30/2017		1.000	%		3/20/2016	Goldman Sachs & Co.		3.733	%		2,800,000		(282,755	)		(186,074	)		(96,681	)

59

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

10. Swap Agreements - continued

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal (Pay) Rate			Maturity Date		Counterparty	Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2011(b)			Notional Amount(c)		Market Value			Upfront Premium Paid/ (Received)			Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
Spanish Government Bond 5.500%, due 7/30/2017		1.000	%		3/20/2016	Goldman Sachs & Co.		3.764	%		15,300,000	$	(1,545,056	)	$	(929,289	)	$	(615,767	)
Spanish Government Bond 5.500%, due 7/30/2017		1.000	%		3/20/2016	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		3.764	%		8,200,000		(828,069	)		(494,613	)		(333,456	)
Spanish Government Bond 5.500%, due 7/30/2017		1.000	%		6/20/2016	Citibank N.A.		3.745	%		21,700,000		(2,310,511	)		(2,512,215	)		201,704
Spanish Government Bond 5.500% due 7/30/2017		1.000	%		6/20/2016	Citibank N.A.		3.745	%		10,500,000		(1,117,990	)		(727,341	)		(390,649	)
United Kingdom Gilt 4.250%, due 6/7/2032		1.000	%		3/20/2015	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		0.664	%		2,900,000		32,402			12,266			20,136
United Kingdom Gilt 4.250%, due 6/7/2032		1.000	%		3/20/2015	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		0.664	%		1,500,000		16,759			7,052			9,707
United Kingdom Gilt 4.250%, due 6/7/2032		1.000	%		6/20/2015	Goldman Sachs & Co.		0.709	%		35,400,000		358,265			327,080			31,185
United Kingdom Gilt 4.250%, due 6/7/2032		1.000	%		12/20/2015	Goldman Sachs & Co.		0.791	%		2,400,000		19,341			55,666			(36,325	)
United Kingdom Gilt 4.250%, due 6/7/2032		1.000	%		3/20/2016	Credit Suisse International		0.825	%		2,500,000		17,620			48,244			(30,624	)
United Kingdom Gilt 4.250% due 6/7/2032		1.000	%		6/20/2016	UBS AG		0.877	%		5,500,000		30,459			95,155			(64,696	)
U.S. Treasury Note 4.875%, due 8/15/2016		0.250	%		9/20/2015	UBS AG		0.440	%		31,800,000		(241,664	)		(477,132	)		235,468
U.S. Treasury Note 4.875%, due 8/15/2016		0.250	%		3/20/2016	BNP Paribas S.A.		0.446	%		21,500,000		(218,189	)		(303,268	)		85,079
Total												$	(41,799,569	)	$	(25,511,383	)	$	(16,288,186	)

OTC Credit default swaps on credit indices - Sell Protection (d)

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal (Pay) Rate			Maturity Date		Counterparty	Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2011(b)			Notional Amount(c)		Market Value		Upfront Premium Paid/ (Received)		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
Markit CDX Emerging Markets Index, Series 12		5.000	%		12/20/2014	Deutsche Bank AG		2.590	%		4,400,000	$	276,301	$	439,300	$	(162,999	)
Markit CDX Emerging Markets Index, Series 13		5.000	%		6/20/2015	Barclays Bank plc		2.809	%		62,900,000		4,481,477		7,847,300		(3,365,823	)
Markit CDX Emerging Markets Index, Series 13		5.000	%		6/20/2015	Deutsche Bank AG		2.809	%		40,900,000		2,914,030		5,209,850		(2,295,820	)
Markit CDX Emerging Markets Index, Series 13		5.000	%		6/20/2015	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		2.809	%		29,900,000		2,130,305		3,609,899		(1,479,594	)
Markit CDX Emerging Markets Index, Series 13		5.000	%		6/20/2015	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		2.809	%		11,300,000		805,099		1,326,150		(521,051	)
Markit CDX Emerging Markets Index, Series 14		5.000	%		12/20/2015	Barclays Bank plc		2.864	%		17,900,000		1,402,214		2,422,750		(1,020,536	)
Markit CDX Emerging Markets Index, Series 14		5.000	%		12/20/2015	Citibank N.A.		2.847	%		6,000,000		470,016		830,100		(360,084	)

60

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

10. Swap Agreements - continued

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal (Pay) Rate			Maturity Date		Counterparty	Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2011(b)			Notional Amount(c)		Market Value		Upfront Premium Paid/ (Received)		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
Markit CDX Emerging Markets Index, Series 14		5.000	%		12/20/2015	Deutsche Bank AG		2.847	%		13,700,000	$	1,073,203	$	1,704,150	$	(630,947	)
Markit CDX Emerging Markets Index, Series 14		5.000	%		12/20/2015	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		2.847	%		1,200,000		94,003		158,400		(64,397	)
Markit CDX Emerging Markets Index, Series 14		5.000	%		12/20/2015	Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.		2.864	%		5,000,000		391,680		650,000		(258,320	)
Markit CDX Emerging Markets Index, Series 14		5.000	%		12/20/2015	UBS AG		2.864	%		2,200,000		172,339		304,700		(132,361	)
Markit CDX Emerging Markets Index, Series 15		5.000	%		6/20/2016	Barclays Bank plc		2.939	%		9,600,000		801,794		1,214,400		(412,606	)
Markit CDX Emerging Markets Index, Series 15		5.000	%		6/20/2016	Deutsche Bank AG		2.952	%		3,400,000		283,969		460,700		(176,731	)
Markit CDX Emerging Markets Index, Series 15		5.000	%		6/20/2016	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		2.939	%		5,300,000		442,657		699,600		(256,943	)
Markit CDX North America Investment Grade, Series 9		0.553	%		12/20/2017	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		0.312	%		1,928,998		25,487		—		25,487
Markit CDX North America Investment Grade, Series 10		0.463	%		6/20/2013	Goldman Sachs & Co.		0.033	%		6,172,793		40,727		—		40,727
Total												$	15,805,301	$	26,877,299	$	(11,071,998	)

AUD— Australian Dollar

BRL— Brazilian Real

EUR— Euro

GBP— British Pound

MXN— Mexican Peso

USD— United States Dollar

N/A— Not Applicable

(a) If the Portfolio is a buyer of protection and a credit event occurs, as defined under the terms of that particular swap agreement, the Portfolio will either (i) receive from the seller of protection an amount equal to the notional amount of the swap and deliver the referenced obligation or underlying securities comprising the referenced index or (ii) receive a net settlement amount in the form of cash or securities equal to the notional amount of the swap less the recovery value of the referenced obligation or underlying securities comprising the referenced index.

b) Implied credit spreads, represented in absolute terms, utilized in determining the market value of credit default swap agreements on corporate issues or sovereign issues of an emerging country as of period end serve as an indicator of the current status of the payment/performance risk and represent the likelihood or risk of default for the credit derivative. The implied credit spread of a particular referenced entity reflects the cost of buying/selling protection and may include upfront payments required to be made to enter into the agreement. Wider credit spreads represent a deterioration of the referenced entity’s credit soundness and a greater likelihood or risk of default or other credit event occurring as defined under the terms of the agreement. A credit spread identified as “Defaulted” indicates a credit event has occurred for the referenced entity or obligation.

(c) The maximum potential amount of future undiscounted payments that the Portfolio could be required to make under a credit default swap contract would be the notional amount of the contract. These potential amounts would be partially offset by any recovery values of the referenced debt obligation or net amounts received from the settlement purchased protection credit default swap contracts entered into by the Portfolio for the same referenced debt obligation.

(d) If the Portfolio is a seller of protection and a credit event occurs, as defined under the terms of that particular swap agreement, the Portfolio will either (i) pay to the buyer of protection an amount equal to the notional amount of the swap and take delivery of the referenced obligation or underlying securities comprising the referenced index or (ii) pay a net settlement amount in the form of cash or securities equal to the notional amount of the swap less the recovery value of the referenced obligation or underlying securities comprising the referenced index.

61

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

11. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

12. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

13. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gains				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$474,678,208	$	290,075,459	$	128,696,511	$	42,671,423	$	603,374,719	$	332,746,882

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long- Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards			Total
$329,650,349	$	—	$	157,483,565	$	(91,093,625	)	$	396,040,289

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses.

As of December 31, 2011, the post-enactment accumulated capital losses were $91,093,625.

14. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy,

62

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

14. Recent Accounting Pronouncements - continued

ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

63

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of PIMCO Total Return Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of PIMCO Total Return Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of PIMCO Total Return Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 28, 2012

64

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

65

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

66

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

67

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the PIMCO Total Return Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

68

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the PIMCO Total Return Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the one-, three- and five-year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Barclays Capital Aggregate Bond Index, for the one- year period ended September 30, 2011, and outperformed its benchmark for the three-, and five-year periods ended September 30, 2011. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s overall performance was satisfactory.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by

69

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the PIMCO Total Return Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were equal to the Expense Group median, and below the Expense Universe median and Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were above the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were above the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

70

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

PIMCO Total Return Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the PIMCO Total Return Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee and sub-advisory fee each contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s management fees are below the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

71

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust Pioneer Fund Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Fund Portfolio

Managed by Pioneer Investment Management, Inc.

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A and B shares of the Pioneer Fund Portfolio returned -4.55% and -4.87%, respectively. The Portfolio’s primary benchmark, the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index¹, returned 2.11%.

Market Environment/Conditions

Year-end 2010 strength carried forward into 2011 as a stream of generally positive economic and earnings news helped equities rise in January and early February. Revolutions in North Africa (notably Libya) pushed up the price of oil and sparked a stock market sell-off in late February and early March, but the U.S. economic and corporate profit outlook continued to gradually improve and prices rebounded in late March and April. Stocks sold off again in May and early June on weakening economic data, growing concerns about the European sovereign debt crisis, rising oil prices, and political squabbling in Washington. Progress on the Greek debt issue and solid earnings reports helped stocks reach new 2011 highs in early July. The third quarter was painful for equity markets, as the possibility of a European sovereign debt crisis, rising recession fears, and the federal debt ceiling stand-off contributed to a sharp sell-off. Helped by stronger economic and earnings reports, the U.S. stock market seemed to bottom at the end of September and recouped some of its third quarter losses in the fourth quarter, ending the year up 2% as measured by the S&P 500 Index.

The best-performing sector of the S&P 500 in 2011 was Utilities (+ 20%), boosted by strong relative performance in the third quarter. The relatively defensive Consumer Staples (+14%) and Health Care (+13%) sectors also significantly outperformed the market. Energy (+5%) had outperformed in January and February, but ended the year only slightly ahead of the market.

Financials (-17%) was, by a wide margin, the worst-performing sector within the S&P 500, although market-relative performance flattened out in the final quarter. The economically sensitive Materials sector (-10%) also lagged the broad market, with most of its underperformance coming in the third quarter. Industrials (-1%), the only other sector to lag the S&P 500 in 2011, recovered some of its third-quarter underperformance in the fourth quarter.

Portfolio Review / Year-End Positioning

Security selection was the primary cause of below-index 2011 returns. Relative Returns were hurt most by stock selection in the Health Care, Consumer Discretionary, and Information Technology sectors; selection in Energy and Materials detracted to a lesser extent, while selection in Financials was most additive to relative returns.

In Health Care, biotech and pharmaceutical companies were favored over equipment & supplies companies; our relative emphasis on the equipment & supplies group worked against us. Security selection results in both groups broadly disappointed as well, compounding the underperformance—notable laggards included Becton Dickinson & Co., St. Jude Medical, Inc., and C.R. Bard, Inc. in the first group and Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd., and Hospira, Inc. in the second.

The largest single drag on returns in the Information Technology sector was our lack of a position in Apple (up over 25% for the year). Positions in Hewlett-Packard Co., blackberry maker Research In Motion, and Nokia (Finland), each of which declined sharply, were also performance drags.

The majority of our Consumer Discretionary underperformance was attributable to our overweighting of Ford Motor Co. and auto-related names (Johnson Controls, Inc., Borg-Warner, Inc.), which posted double-digit declines despite solid volume and profit growth; each of these names has been a positive contributor to results over the trailing three and five years, despite 2011 underperformance. Our below-benchmark exposure to hotel, restaurant, and advertising-sensitive media companies explains most of the remainder.

The primary drag on Energy sector results was our exposure to natural gas and refining/downstream (most notably Hess Corp. and Apache Corp.) operations in a year when oil-focused and upstream businesses were favored due to high oil prices. In the Materials sector, security selection in chemicals helped, but our emphasis on mining companies Rio Tinto plc, Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc., and aluminum producer Alcoa, Inc., each down 30% or more for the year, pulled down results. (Rio Tinto plc and Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc. remain among the top performance contributors over the trailing three and five years)

We had our best relative results in the Financials sector, where our bias against money center banks and “Wall Street” firms helped us avoid substantial losses. Our positions in custody-oriented banks such as Bank of New York Mellon, Northern Trust Corp., and State Street Corp. did not perform well in a zero-interest-rate world, limiting our outperformance but our insurers (notably property/casualty insurer Chubb Corp.) were standout performers.

2011 was a frustrating year, as our expectations for the U. S. economy and earnings were generally borne out, but “macro” concerns made investors reluctant to own cyclically-exposed stocks, even if the underlying fundamentals were good. Many portfolio holdings disappointed—though more often and more severely in terms of their share price than in terms of their earnings.

We continue to be long-term and low-turnover investors in companies we think can prosper over the longer term while surviving near-term threats. While 2011 results were frustrating, they did not result in a significant restructuring of the portfolio: roughly 12% of the start-of-year portfolio was in names which were sold during the year, and roughly 12% of the end-of-year portfolio was in names which were purchased during the year; this turnover is in line with long-term averages.

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Fund Portfolio

Managed by Pioneer Investment Management, Inc.

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

Sector weights are kept close to those of the S&P 500 to ensure that bottom-up security selection, rather than top-down forecasting is the primary driver of performance over time. Our 2011 trades resulted in modestly increased exposure to the Health Care and Consumer Discretionary sectors and modestly lower exposure to Materials and Consumer Staples.

At the end of 2011, the portfolio’s largest exposures (in absolute and benchmark-relative terms) were in the Industrials (emphasizing railroads and machinery companies) and Consumer Discretionary (emphasized publishing, retailing, and auto-related companies) sectors, while its largest underweights relative to the S&P 500 were in Information Technology (more a function of valuations than of a negative fundamental view) and Utilities (valuations appear unattractive).

John A. Carey Executive Vice President and Portfolio Manager

Walter Hunnewell, Jr. Portfolio Manager

Pioneer Investment Management, Inc.

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Norfolk Southern Corp.		3.3
Chevron Corp.		3.1
Chubb Corp. (The)		2.5
Johnson Controls, Inc.		1.9
Colgate-Palmolive Co.		1.8
Hershey Co. (The)		1.8
Becton, Dickinson & Co.		1.8
Target Corp.		1.8
Rio Tinto plc (ADR)		1.7
PACCAR, Inc.		1.7

Top Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Non-Cyclical		21.6
Cyclical		13.6
Industrials		12.9
Energy		12.0
Financials		11.5
Technology		11.2
Communications		8.5
Basic Materials		5.6
Cash & Cash Equivalents		1.9
Utilities		1.2

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Fund Portfolio

Pioneer Fund Portfolio managed by

Pioneer Investment Management, Inc. vs. S&P 500 Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 year		5 Year		10 Year		Since Inception3
Pioneer Fund Portfolio—Class A		-4.55%		-0.62%		1.35%		—
Class B		-4.87%		—		—		14.82%
S&P 500 Index1		2.11%		-0.25%		2.92%		—

The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other class of shares because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹The Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Composite Stock Price Index is an unmanaged index representing the performance of 500 major companies, most of which are listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

²“Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gains distributions.

³ Inception of Class A shares is 2/4/1994. Inception of Class B shares is 4/28/2009.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Fund Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A(a)
Actual		0.69%	$	1,000.00	$	913.10	$	3.33
Hypothetical*		0.69%		1,000.00		1,021.72		3.52
Class B(a)
Actual		0.94%	$	1,000.00	$	911.70	$	4.53
Hypothetical*		0.94%		1,000.00		1,020.46		4.79

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

(a) The annualized expense ratio reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 3 to the Financial Statements.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Fund Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—98.0% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—2.4%
General Dynamics Corp.		98,277	$	6,526,576
Lockheed Martin Corp.		61,414		4,968,393
United Technologies Corp.		121,737		8,897,757
				20,392,726
Auto Components—2.8%
Autoliv, Inc. (a)		30,573		1,635,350
BorgWarner, Inc.* (a)		96,777		6,168,566
Johnson Controls, Inc.		509,247		15,919,061
				23,722,977
Automobiles—0.9%
Ford Motor Co.*		684,716		7,367,544
Biotechnology—0.7%
Amgen, Inc.		95,984		6,163,133
Capital Markets—3.9%
Franklin Resources, Inc. (a)		89,334		8,581,424
Northern Trust Corp.		146,442		5,807,890
State Street Corp.		205,831		8,297,047
T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.		190,705		10,860,650
				33,547,011
Chemicals—2.7%
Airgas, Inc.		107,302		8,378,140
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.		142,987		6,545,945
Ecolab, Inc.		103,719		5,995,995
Mosaic Co. (The)		37,729		1,902,674
				22,822,754
Commercial Banks—3.5%
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (a)		44,091		3,199,562
Comerica, Inc.		154,991		3,998,768
KeyCorp.		398,120		3,061,543
PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.		127,493		7,352,521
U.S. Bancorp.		293,958		7,951,564
Wells Fargo & Co.		169,143		4,661,581
				30,225,539
Communications Equipment—1.8%
Cisco Systems, Inc.		272,207		4,921,502
Juniper Networks, Inc.*		251,000		5,122,910
Motorola Solutions, Inc.		47,056		2,178,222
QUALCOMM, Inc.		64,468		3,526,400
				15,749,034
Computers & Peripherals—0.9%
Hewlett-Packard Co.		181,135	$	4,666,037
NetApp, Inc.*		78,425		2,844,475
				7,510,512
Consumer Finance—0.9%
American Express Co.		87,204		4,113,413
Discover Financial Services		151,022		3,624,528
				7,737,941
Diversified Telecommunication Services—1.7%
AT&T, Inc.		301,623		9,121,080
Verizon Communications, Inc.		132,820		5,328,738
				14,449,818
Electric Utilities—0.7%
Southern Co.		131,597		6,091,625
Electrical Equipment—1.4%
Emerson Electric Co.		145,373		6,772,928
Rockwell Automation, Inc.		74,107		5,437,231
				12,210,159
Energy Equipment & Services—2.3%
Cameron International Corp.*		65,549		3,224,355
Ensco plc (ADR)		104,101		4,884,419
Helmerich & Payne, Inc.		47,432		2,768,132
McDermott International, Inc.*		144,835		1,667,051
Schlumberger, Ltd.		108,979		7,444,355
				19,988,312
Food & Staples Retailing—2.9%
Sysco Corp.		230,132		6,749,772
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.		85,796		5,127,169
Walgreen Co.		380,157		12,567,990
				24,444,931
Food Products—4.9%
General Mills, Inc.		222,706		8,999,549
H.J. Heinz Co.		200,287		10,823,510
Hershey Co. (The)		253,399		15,654,990
Kraft Foods, Inc.—Class A		173,189		6,470,341
				41,948,390
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—6.6%
Baxter International, Inc.		118,776		5,877,037
Becton, Dickinson & Co.		205,391		15,346,816
C.R. Bard, Inc.		125,085		10,694,768
Covidien plc		71,638		3,224,426

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Fund Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—(Continued)
Medtronic, Inc.		84,245	$	3,222,371
Smith & Nephew plc		19,276		186,849
Smith & Nephew plc (ADR) (a)		116,636		5,616,023
St. Jude Medical, Inc.		202,524		6,946,573
Stryker Corp.		102,337		5,087,172
				56,202,035
Health Care Providers & Services—1.2%
Cardinal Health, Inc.		73,384		2,980,124
Medco Health Solutions, Inc.*		50,130		2,802,267
UnitedHealth Group, Inc.		82,697		4,191,084
				9,973,475
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—0.3%
Yum! Brands, Inc.		37,099		2,189,212
Household Products—2.2%
Clorox Co. (The)		40,151		2,672,451
Colgate-Palmolive Co.		169,447		15,655,208
				18,327,659
Industrial Conglomerates—1.5%
3M Co.		84,285		6,888,613
General Electric Co.		312,648		5,599,526
				12,488,139
Insurance—3.1%
Chubb Corp. (The)		311,308		21,548,740
Travelers Cos., Inc. (The)		83,965		4,968,209
				26,516,949
Internet Software & Services—0.4%
eBay, Inc.*		102,363		3,104,670
IT Services—2.9%
Automatic Data Processing, Inc.		152,422		8,232,312
DST Systems, Inc.		101,192		4,606,260
Fiserv, Inc.*		71,869		4,221,585
International Business Machines Corp.		41,234		7,582,108
				24,642,265
Machinery—4.3%
Caterpillar, Inc.		79,718		7,222,451
Deere & Co.		119,921		9,275,889
Illinois Tool Works, Inc.		56,745		2,650,559
PACCAR, Inc.		375,443		14,067,849
Parker Hannifin Corp.		42,192		3,217,140
				36,433,888
Media—4.1%
CBS Corp.—Class B		265,339	$	7,201,300
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.—Class A		10,948		486,091
McGraw-Hill Cos, Inc. (The)		267,407		12,025,293
Pearson plc		371,683		6,963,188
Scripps Networks Interactive, Inc.—Class A		195,022		8,272,833
				34,948,705
Metals & Mining—2.9%
Alcoa, Inc.		418,570		3,620,631
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc.		169,318		6,229,209
Rio Tinto plc		9,872		477,920
Rio Tinto plc (ADR) (a)		301,583		14,753,440
				25,081,200
Multi-Utilities—0.5%
Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc.		127,664		4,214,189
Multiline Retail—3.7%
Kohl’s Corp.		84,385		4,164,400
Macy’s, Inc.		136,885		4,404,959
Nordstrom, Inc.		156,933		7,801,139
Target Corp.		299,127		15,321,285
				31,691,783
Office Electronics—1.3%
Canon, Inc. (ADR) (a)		244,799		10,780,948
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—9.8%
Apache Corp.		145,613		13,189,626
Chevron Corp.		250,472		26,650,221
ConocoPhillips		154,339		11,246,683
CONSOL Energy, Inc.		55,607		2,040,777
Devon Energy Corp.		65,473		4,059,326
Exxon Mobil Corp.		131,283		11,127,547
Hess Corp.		108,948		6,188,246
Marathon Oil Corp.		197,813		5,789,986
Marathon Petroleum Corp.		98,906		3,292,581
				83,584,993
Personal Products—1.0%
Estee Lauder Cos., Inc. (The)—Class A		74,189		8,332,908
Pharmaceuticals—4.2%
Abbott Laboratories		208,694		11,734,864
Eli Lilly & Co.		110,545		4,594,250
Hospira, Inc.* (a)		160,691		4,880,186
Merck & Co., Inc.		106,118		4,000,648

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Fund Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Pharmaceuticals—(Continued)
Pfizer, Inc.		368,937	$	7,983,797
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. (ADR)		56,862		2,294,950
				35,488,695
Road & Rail — 4.8%
Canadian National Railway Co.		162,527		12,768,121
Norfolk Southern Corp.		380,492		27,722,647
				40,490,768
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—4.6%
Altera Corp.		101,987		3,783,718
Analog Devices, Inc.		233,630		8,359,281
Applied Materials, Inc.		396,632		4,247,929
ASML Holding N.V.		125,750		5,255,092
Intel Corp.		350,168		8,491,574
Texas Instruments, Inc.		314,869		9,165,837
				39,303,431
Software—2.0%
Adobe Systems, Inc.*		161,423		4,563,428
Microsoft Corp.		183,360		4,760,025
Nuance Communications, Inc.* (a)		80,036		2,013,706
Oracle Corp.		59,298		1,520,994
Symantec Corp.*		240,878		3,769,741
				16,627,894
Specialty Retail—0.9%
Lowe’s Cos., Inc.		304,805		7,735,951
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—1.3%
Coach, Inc.		182,095		11,115,079
Total Common Stocks (Cost $685,217,218)				833,647,242

Short-Term Investments—6.8%

Security Description	Shares/Par Amount		Value
Mutual Funds—4.9%
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (b)		41,622,046	$	41,622,046
Repurchase Agreement—1.9%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $16,302,018 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $16,650,000 Freddie Mac at 0.625% due 12/31/13 with a value of $16,629,188.	$	16,302,000		16,302,000
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $57,924,046)				57,924,046
Total Investments—104.8% (Cost $743,141,264#)				891,571,288
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(4.8)%				(40,944,486	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	850,626,802

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $747,600,340. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $161,770,189 and $(17,799,241), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $143,970,948 for federal income tax purposes.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities loaned was $40,790,161 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $41,622,046. The cash collateral is invested in a money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian.

(b) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities lending transactions.

(ADR)— An American Depositary Receipt is a certificate issued by a custodian bank representing the right to receive securities of the foreign issuer described. Trading on exchanges not located in the United States or Canada significantly influences the value of ADRs.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Fund Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Common Stocks
Aerospace & Defense	$	20,392,726	$	—	$	—	$	20,392,726
Auto Components		23,722,977		—		—		23,722,977
Automobiles		7,367,544		—		—		7,367,544
Biotechnology		6,163,133		—		—		6,163,133
Capital Markets		33,547,011		—		—		33,547,011
Chemicals		22,822,754		—		—		22,822,754
Commercial Banks		30,225,539		—		—		30,225,539
Communications Equipment		15,749,034		—		—		15,749,034
Computers & Peripherals		7,510,512		—		—		7,510,512
Consumer Finance		7,737,941		—		—		7,737,941
Diversified Telecommunication Services		14,449,818		—		—		14,449,818
Electric Utilities		6,091,625		—		—		6,091,625
Electrical Equipment		12,210,159		—		—		12,210,159
Energy Equipment & Services		19,988,312		—		—		19,988,312
Food & Staples Retailing		24,444,931		—		—		24,444,931
Food Products		41,948,390		—		—		41,948,390
Health Care Equipment & Supplies		56,015,186		186,849		—		56,202,035
Health Care Providers & Services		9,973,475		—		—		9,973,475
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure		2,189,212		—		—		2,189,212
Household Products		18,327,659		—		—		18,327,659
Industrial Conglomerates		12,488,139		—		—		12,488,139
Insurance		26,516,949		—		—		26,516,949
Internet Software & Services		3,104,670		—		—		3,104,670
IT Services		24,642,265		—		—		24,642,265
Machinery		36,433,888		—		—		36,433,888
Media		27,985,517		6,963,188		—		34,948,705
Metals & Mining		24,603,280		477,920		—		25,081,200
Multi-Utilities		4,214,189		—		—		4,214,189
Multiline Retail		31,691,783		—		—		31,691,783
Office Electronics		10,780,948		—		—		10,780,948
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels		83,584,993		—		—		83,584,993

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Fund Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY—(Continued)

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Personal Products	$	8,332,908	$	—	$	—	$	8,332,908
Pharmaceuticals		35,488,695		—		—		35,488,695
Road & Rail		40,490,768		—		—		40,490,768
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment		39,303,431		—		—		39,303,431
Software		16,627,894		—		—		16,627,894
Specialty Retail		7,735,951		—		—		7,735,951
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods		11,115,079		—		—		11,115,079
Total Common Stocks		826,019,285		7,627,957		—		833,647,242
Short-Term Investments
Mutual Funds		41,622,046		—		—		41,622,046
Repurchase Agreement		—		16,302,000		—		16,302,000
Total Short-Term Investments	$	41,622,046	$	16,302,000	$	—	$	57,924,046
Total Investments	$	867,641,331	$	23,929,957	$	—	$	891,571,288

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Fund Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)(b)	$	875,269,288
Repurchase Agreement		16,302,000
Cash		688
Receivable for shares sold		309,028
Dividends receivable		1,427,314
Total assets		893,308,318
Liabilities
Payables for:
Shares redeemed		462,579
Collateral for securities loaned		41,622,046
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		449,112
Distribution and service fees - Class B		13,043
Administration fees		3,696
Custodian and accounting fees		6,096
Deferred trustees’ fees		27,662
Other expenses		97,282
Total liabilities		42,681,516
Net Assets	$	850,626,802
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	815,390,136
Accumulated net realized loss		(126,939,517	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments, futures contracts and foreign currency transactions		148,429,881
Undistributed net investment income		13,746,302
Net Assets	$	850,626,802
Net Assets
Class A	$	789,037,481
Class B		61,589,321
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		59,118,625
Class B		4,657,668
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	13.35
Class B		13.22

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreement, was $726,839,264.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $40,790,161.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	19,969,509
Interest (b)		132,563
Total investment income		20,102,072
Expenses
Management fees		5,735,323
Administration fees		46,697
Custodian and accounting fees		74,608
Distribution and service fees - Class B		137,826
Audit and tax services		33,103
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,592
Shareholder reporting		222,843
Insurance		7,897
Miscellaneous		11,787
Total expenses		6,338,962
Less management fee waiver		(125,751	)
Less broker commission recapture		(41,372	)
Net expenses		6,171,839
Net investment income		13,930,233
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments, Futures Contracts and Foreign Currency Transactions
Net realized gain on:
Investments		35,234,691
Futures contracts		1,094,098
Foreign currency transactions		88,142
Net realized gain on investments, futures contracts and foreign currency transactions		36,416,931
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on:
Investments		(81,294,673	)
Foreign currency transactions		3
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments, futures contracts and foreign currency transactions		(81,294,670	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments, futures contracts and foreign currency transactions		(44,877,739	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(30,947,506	)

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $276,149.

(b) Includes net income on securities loaned of $131,317.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Fund Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	13,930,233		$	11,795,944
Net realized gain on investments, futures contracts and foreign currency transactions		36,416,931			24,875,544
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments and foreign currency transactions		(81,294,670	)		93,003,117
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations		(30,947,506	)		129,674,605
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(11,591,733	)		(6,734,685	)
Class B		(420,398	)		(179,031	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(12,012,131	)		(6,913,716	)
Net increase (decrease) in net assets from capital share transactions		(76,962,736	)		108,500,735
Net Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets		(119,922,373	)		231,261,624
Net assets at beginning of period		970,549,175			739,287,551
Net assets at end of period	$	850,626,802		$	970,549,175
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	13,746,302		$	11,786,215

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		27,152,869		$	397,038,985			13,036,045		$	166,362,086
Reinvestments		790,705			11,591,733			509,817			6,734,685
Redemptions		(35,094,253	)		(520,414,069	)		(5,658,826	)		(70,900,155	)
Net increase (decrease)		(7,150,679	)	$	(111,783,351	)		7,887,036		$	102,196,616
Class B
Sales		1,574,399		$	21,684,574			1,037,732		$	13,069,623
Fund subscription in kind (a)		2,010,685			29,959,203			—			—
Reinvestments		28,893			420,398			13,636			179,031
Redemptions		(1,276,649	)		(17,243,560	)		(559,073	)		(6,944,535	)
Net increase		2,337,328		$	34,820,615			492,295		$	6,304,119
Increase (decrease) derived from capital shares transactions				$	(76,962,736	)				$	108,500,735

(a) Includes cash and securities amounting to $64,438 and $29,894,765, respectively. Securities were valued at market as of April 29, 2011.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Fund Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	14.15		$	12.28		$	10.13		$	15.23		$	14.63
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.22			0.18			0.18			0.21			0.15
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.85	)		1.80			2.17			(5.17	)		0.58
Total from investment operations		(0.63	)		1.98			2.35			(4.96	)		0.73
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.17	)		(0.11	)		(0.20	)		(0.14	)		(0.13	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			0.00			0.00
Total distributions		(0.17	)		(0.11	)		(0.20	)		(0.14	)		(0.13	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	13.35		$	14.15		$	12.28		$	10.13		$	15.23
Total Return (%)		(4.55	)		16.22			23.89			(32.84	)		5.01
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.69			0.69			0.74			1.04			0.99
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%) (c)		0.68			0.67			0.72			0.96			0.97
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.56			1.46			1.63			1.61			0.95
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		19.8			10.2			41.2			14.3			18.2
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	789.0		$	938.0		$	717.0		$	39.9		$	46.1

	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	14.04		$	12.20		$	9.29
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.19			0.15			0.10
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.86	)		1.79			2.81
Total from investment operations		(0.67	)		1.94			2.91
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.15	)		(0.10	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00
Total distributions		(0.15	)		(0.10	)		0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	13.22		$	14.04		$	12.20
Total Return (%)		(4.87	)		15.93			31.32
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.94			0.94			0.99	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%) (c)		0.93			0.92			0.97	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.37			1.20			1.34	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		19.8			10.2			41.2
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	61.6		$	32.6		$	22.3

* Annualized.

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Commencement of operations was 4/28/2009.

(c) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Fund Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Pioneer Fund Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Companies (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A and B Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Fund Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to broker commission recapture, foreign currency transactions, passive foreign investment companies (PFICs), deferred trustees’ compensation, capital loss carryforwards and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Fund Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Securities Lending - The Portfolio may lend its portfolio securities to certain qualified brokers who borrow securities in order to complete certain securities transactions. By lending its portfolio securities, the Portfolio attempts to increase its net investment income through the receipt of income on the loaned securities. Any gain or loss in the market price of the loaned securities that might occur and any interest earned or dividends declared during the term of the loan would accrue to the account of the Portfolio.

The Trust has entered into a securities lending arrangement with the custodian, State Street Bank and Trust Company (the “custodian”). Under this arrangement, the custodian is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral at least equal to 102% of the market value of the loaned securities (105% for foreign equity securities), at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities must be maintained for the duration of the loan. Cash collateral is generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The Navigator Portfolio is a registered money market fund which invests in a variety of high quality U.S. dollar-denominated instruments. If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower shall be required to deliver, by the close of business on the following business day, an additional amount of collateral so that the total amount of posted collateral equals at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of net income (income after the deduction of expenses and fees of the Navigator Portfolio) on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the custodian and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by U.S. Treasuries, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the custodian. The risks associated with lending portfolio securities include, but are not limited to, possible delays in receiving additional collateral or in the recovery of the loaned securities, possible loss of rights in the collateral should the borrower fail financially, as well as risk of loss in the value of the collateral or the value of the investments made with the collateral. Net interest income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2011 is disclosed in the footnotes to the Statement of Operations. Any outstanding loans by the Portfolio at December 31, 2011 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments.

Directed Brokerage Agreement - The Trust has entered into a directed brokerage arrangement with State Street Global Markets (“SSGM”). Under this arrangement, the Portfolio directs certain trades to SSGM in return for a recapture credit. SSGM issues a cash rebate to the Portfolio. Amounts paid to the Portfolio are shown separately as broker commission recapture on the Statement of Operations of the Portfolio. Additionally, these amounts have been excluded from the calculation of the ratio of net expenses to average net assets presented in the Financial Highlights for each share class.

Foreign Currency Translation - The books and records of the Portfolio are maintained in U.S. dollars. The values of securities, currencies and other assets and liabilities denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars are translated into U.S. dollars based upon foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period. Purchases and sales of investment securities, income and expenses are translated on the respective dates of such transactions. Since the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, it is not practical to isolate that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates from that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities. Such fluctuations are included in the net realized and unrealized gain or loss on investments.

Net realized foreign exchange gains or losses arise from activity in forward foreign currency exchange contracts, sales of foreign currency, currency gains or losses realized between the trade and settlement dates on securities transactions, and the difference between the amounts of dividends, interest, and foreign withholding taxes recorded by the Portfolio and the U.S. dollar equivalent of the amounts actually received or paid by the Portfolio. Gains and losses attributable to foreign currency exchange rates on sales of securities are recorded as Net realized gains and losses on investments. Net unrealized foreign exchange gains and losses arise from changes in the value of assets and liabilities, other than investment securities, resulting from changes in foreign exchange rates.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with Pioneer Investment Management, Inc. (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Fund Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$5,735,323		0.70	%	First $200 Million
		0.65	%	$200 Million to $500 Million
		0.60	%	$500 Million to $2 Billion
		0.55	%	Over $2 Billion

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Management Fee Waiver - Effective May 1, 2009, the Subadviser reduced the subadvisory fee it charges to the Adviser for managing the Portfolio. This fee change reduced the subadvisory fee charged on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets. In connection with this change in the subadvisory fee, the Adviser contractually agreed, effective May 1, 2011, to waive a portion of the management fee through April 30, 2012. This waiver reduced the management fee to the annual rate of 0.675% of the first $200 million of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets, plus 0.625% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets in excess of $200 million up to $500 million, plus 0.600% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets in excess of $500 million up to $1 billion, plus 0.575% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets in excess of $1 billion up to $2 billion, plus 0.550% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets in excess of $2 billion. This arrangement was voluntary for the period from January 1, 2011 through April 30, 2011. Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as a management fee waiver in the Statement of Operations.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Distribution Agreement and Plan - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A and Class B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B distribution plan provides that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B Shares. However, under the Class B distribution agreement, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B distribution plan are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B distribution plan and distribution agreement, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. as designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases		Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government	U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government
$—	$175,772,973	$—	$278,799,374

During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio engaged in security sale transactions with other affiliated portfolios. These sale transactions amounted to $59,509,014 and resulted in a realized gain of $16,382,251.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Fund Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments

Futures Contracts - The Portfolio may buy and sell futures contracts (on recognized exchanges) as a hedge, to maintain investment exposure to a target asset class or to enhance return. The Portfolio may be subject to fluctuations in equity prices, interest rates, commodity prices and foreign currency exchange rates in the normal course of pursuing its investment objective. Futures contracts are standardized agreements to buy or sell a security, or deliver a final cash settlement price in connection with an index, interest rate, currency, or other asset. The Portfolio must deposit an amount (“initial margin”) equal to a certain percentage of the face value of the futures contract. The initial margin may be in the form of cash or securities which is returned when the Portfolio’s obligations under the contract have been satisfied. If cash is deposited as the initial margin, it is shown as “restricted cash” on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Futures contracts are marked-to-market daily and subsequent payments (“variation margin”) are made or received by the Portfolio depending on the daily fluctuations in the value of the futures contracts. These amounts are reflected as receivables or payables on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Risks of entering into futures contracts (and related options) include the possibility that the market for these instruments may be illiquid and that a change in the value of the contract or option may not correlate perfectly with changes in the value of the underlying instrument. Futures contracts are exchange traded and the exchange’s clearinghouse, as counterparty to all exchange traded futures, guarantees the futures contracts against default.

During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio entered into equity index futures contracts which were subject to equity price risk. During the period April 26 through April 28, 2011, the Portfolio had bought and sold $99,545,036 in equity index futures contracts. At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not have any open futures contracts. For the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had realized gains in the amount of $1,094,098 which are shown under Net realized gain on futures contracts in the Statement of Operations.

6. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

7. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income				Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2011		2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$	12,012,131	$	6,913,716	$	—	$	—	$	12,012,131	$	6,913,716

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards			Total
$13,774,773	$	—	$	143,970,805	$	(122,480,441	)	$	35,265,137

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Fund Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

8. Income Tax Information - continued

losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses.

As of December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and the pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards and expiration dates were as follows:

Expiring 12/31/2015			Expiring 12/31/2016			Expiring 12/31/2017		Total
$	35,128,909	*	$	43,082,756	*	$	44,268,776	$	122,480,441

* The Portfolio acquired capital losses in the merger with Capital Guardian on May 1, 2009.

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Fund Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Pioneer Fund Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Pioneer Fund Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Pioneer Fund Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 23, 2012

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Fund Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the Pioneer Fund Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Fund Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the Pioneer Fund Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and Lipper Index for the one-, three- and five- year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the S&P 500 Index, for the one-, three- and five- year periods ended September 30, 2011. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance, including relative to its benchmark. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s overall performance was satisfactory.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Fund Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the Pioneer Fund Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the Expense Group median, the Expense Universe median, and the Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were below the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that in May 2009 the Adviser had negotiated a reduction to the Portfolio’s sub-advisory fee schedule through the implementation of an additional breakpoint. The Board also took into consideration that the Adviser is waiving an additional portion of its advisory fee in order for shareholders to benefit from the fee reduction being implemented at the sub-advisory fee level. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules

25

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Fund Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

With respect to the Pioneer Fund Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee and sub-advisory fee each contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s management fees are above the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

26

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Managed by Pioneer Investment Management, Inc.

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A and E shares of the Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio returned 3.63% and 3.46%, respectively. The Portfolio’s primary benchmark, the Barclays Capital U.S. Universal Index¹, returned 7.40%.

Market Environment/Conditions

Politics, monetary policy decisions, and a natural disaster had the biggest impact on markets in 2011. The Eurozone sovereign and banking crisis was the single most important issue that concerned investors, reaching a climax in the third quarter, and causing a return of volatility and the underperformance of non-government fixed income. The debt ceiling debate, coupled with the Standard & Poor’s ratings downgrade of U.S. Treasuries, further increased market volatility and unease. Finally, the supply chain effects of the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, together with the end of the second round of Quantitative Easing in June, raised recession concerns in the U.S. over the summer. As U.S. economic reports, particularly those related to consumption and employment, took an increasingly positive tone, however, market sentiment improved and equity and credit markets rallied in the fourth quarter, despite residual concerns about the Eurozone. U.S. equity markets returned 11.8% over the final quarter, to end the year marginally positive at 2% as measured by the S&P 500 Index.

U.S. Treasury markets posted the best returns for the year, reflecting the Federal Reserve’s (Fed) early September “Operation Twist” stimulus program targeted at reducing yields on longer-duration Treasuries, as well as encouraging investor migration to non-Treasury assets. The 10-year Treasury returned 17.18%, as yields declined from 3.30% to 1.87%, while the 30-year Treasury delivered a 35.60% return, as yields declined by 1.46% to 2.89% at year end. Agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS) returned 6.23%, for a -1.06% excess return, benefiting from the Fed’s September decision to resume reinvestment into the market, of mortgage paydowns from its mortgage portfolio. (Excess return is defined as the return relative to like-duration Treasuries.) Investment Grade Corporates returned 8.15%, for a -3.67% excess return, reflecting dramatic underperformance of Financials; investors shunned Financials on concerns about the solvency and liquidity of European banks as well as contagion effects on U.S. banks. Financials returned 3.15%, for a -6.28% excess return, compared to Industrials, which returned 10.46%, representing a -2.33% excess return, and Utilities returned 13.23% , for a -1.60% excess return. High Yield Corporates underperformed Investment Grade Corporates on an absolute basis (although slightly outperformed on an excess return basis), returning 4.38%, for a -3.36% excess return. Reflecting the rise in market volatility, High Yield spreads began the year at 541 bps (basis points), peaked in the third quarter at 910 bps, and ended the year at 723 bps. High Yield Convertibles experienced even more volatile performance, but ultimately returned 4.64%. As the inflation outlook weakened over the year, floating rate Bank Loans underperformed High Yield Corporates, returning 1.06%. Non-Agency MBS/ABS (Mortgage Backed Securities/Asset Backed Securities), as represented by Floating Rate Non-Agency ABS, suffered significantly worse returns of -5.22%, reflecting disappointment over the slower than expected recovery in the housing market as well as investor concerns about forced selling by European banks. While Municipals underperformed Treasuries, they nonetheless posted strong absolute returns, benefiting in part from their longer duration relative to other fixed income asset classes, as well as from the failure of dire default predictions to materialize. The Municipal market returned 10.70%, for a -3.91% excess return, while the High Yield Municipal market posted a 9.25% return, for a -8% excess return. Finally, Emerging Market Corporates returned 1.47% on a U.S. dollar basis, underperforming not only the U.S. Investment Grade and U.S. High Yield Corporate markets, but dramatically underperforming the Emerging Market Sovereign markets, which rose 8.16%. The U.S. Dollar outperformed every major currency except the Japanese Yen and the Chinese Renminbi, as Eurozone-related and most Latin and South American currencies sold off. The Yen and Renminbi rose 5.47% and 4.96%, respectively, against the Dollar, while the Dollar rose 3.26% against the Euro.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

The primary detractors to performance were the interest rate sensitivity of the Portfolio and asset allocation. The approximate one year short duration of the Portfolio reduced performance by 239 bps; the yield curve “flattener” embedded in the Portfolio mitigated this impact, contributing approximately 48 bps to performance. Both of these effects resulted principally in the third quarter from Operation Twist. Asset allocation hurt performance by 87 bps, primarily the result of the 22% underweight to Treasuries, which accounted for 24 bps of underperformance; and the 7% overweight to Financials and 25% underweight to Agency MBS, both of which hurt performance by 16 bps. In addition, after accounting for duration effect, the 6% overweight to Municipals hurt performance by 32 bps. The 1.5% overweight to Collateralized MBS hurt performance by 10 bps. Security selection also detracted from performance by 39 bps, reflecting 34 bps attributable to the American Airlines bankruptcy. Finally, Non-Dollar Currency reduced performance by 37 bps, primarily reflecting the underperformance of the Turkish lira, Canadian dollar, and Brazilian real positions.

We made three significant changes to the Portfolio in 2011, including investing in Municipal bonds, reducing our European and Euro exposures early in the year, and changing our yield curve positioning later in the year. We built a 6% position in tax-exempt Municipals, following a sharp sell-off in that market in late 2010 and early 2011. We believed the market presented attractive investment opportunities for investors, particularly among tax-exempt obligations backed by corporations and universities. Municipals experienced strong performance in 2011, as defaults remained subdued. As the European crisis became an increasing concern in the second quarter, we reduced the (already low) exposure to the Eurozone, and fully hedged the Euro exposure. European assets underperformed over the remainder of the year, and the Euro declined relative to the U.S. dollar. Finally, in the fourth quarter, we began to adjust the yield curve

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Managed by Pioneer Investment Management, Inc.

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

“flattener” positioning of the Portfolio, to a more neutral position across the yield curve. Operation Twist, in which the Fed began purchasing longer maturity bonds and reduced its purchases of short maturity Treasuries, resulted in a significant flattening of the yield curve. With its “flattener” positioning, the Portfolio benefited significantly from this move. Since the yield curve had flattened, we believed it was prudent to hold a more neutral position across the yield curve.

At period end, we held a significant overweight to Corporate Bonds, because we believed they offered the most attractive value among fixed income asset classes. Corporations, particularly in the U.S., showed both attractive valuations and strong fundamentals as revenue growth and tight cost controls have allowed U.S. companies to enjoy continued improvement in their earnings and balance sheets. Moreover, the Fed’s commitment to continued low interest rates, coupled with modest economic growth, we believe, may continue to support spread product such as Corporate Bonds, and particularly High Yield Corporate Bonds. High Yield spreads remained wide to long-term averages, while projected defaults remain well below long term averages. As of period end, senior, secured securities such as Corporate Bank Loans are also intriguing, in light of all-in yields of 6%, average dollar prices of $92-$93, and minimal interest rate risk. Although the Convertibles market has recently shrunk as corporations opt to finance in the bond market at record-low yields, Convertibles have offered value, given our preference for equities over fixed income. Finally, we found Municipal Bonds attractive relative to Treasuries, particularly at the long end, where the ratio of Municipal yields to Treasury yields stands at very high levels. Many states and municipalities have made necessary cuts to balance their budgets, while at the same time benefiting from higher tax revenues as the economy recovers. In international bond markets, we found Emerging Market Corporate Bonds attractive; they underperformed relative to U.S. High Yield Corporates and more dramatically, relative to Emerging Market Sovereigns in 2011. Emerging Market Corporates offered opportunities to invest in the positive emerging market secular growth story, as well as in global players in their markets.

At year end we remained underweight Developed Government Bonds, based on our view that they have poor fundamentals and unattractive valuations. Europe and the United States continued to suffer from high deficits and high and growing debt-to-Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ratios. Furthermore, Operation Twist has contributed to negative real yields across the Treasury yield curve. No Treasury security offered yields that exceeded inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index. In the long run, we believe U.S. Treasuries may no longer represent a “risk-free” investment, even though they are currently being supported by the Fed. Finally, we continued to maintain a cautious stance towards Eurozone markets. The Eurozone is falling into recession and has not yet found a comprehensive solution to its sovereign and banking crisis. We continued to be highly selective with respect to our European debt investments and, at period end, maintained a near-zero exposure to the euro.

Ken Taubes, Portfolio Manager, Executive Vice President

Pioneer Investment Management, Inc.

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Managed by Pioneer Investment Management, Inc.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Issuers

	% of Net Assets
U.S. Treasury Bonds		3.1
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool		1.4
Canada Housing Trust No. 1		1.4
Sweden Government Bond		1.1
Countrywide Alternative Loan Trust		1.0
Freddie Mac 30 Yr. Gold Pool		1.0
International Bank for Reconstruction & Development (The)		0.9
Wells Fargo Mortgage Backed Securities Trust		0.9
Banc of America Alternative Loan Trust		0.8
U.S. Treasury Notes		0.8

Top Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities		26.0
Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities		22.1
Mortgage-Backed Securities		12.3
Loan Participation		11.6
U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies		8.8
Municipals		6.1
Convertible Bonds		4.9
Asset-Backed Securities		3.8
Cash & Cash Equivalents		2.0
Preferred Stocks		1.5
Convertible Preferred Stocks		0.8
Common Stocks		0.1

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio managed by

Pioneer Investment Management, Inc. vs. Barclays Capital U.S. Universal Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year		Since Inception3
Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio—Class A		3.63%		8.05%		8.59%		—
Class E		3.46%		—		—		8.49%
Barclays Capital U.S. Universal Index1		7.40%		6.39%		6.01%		—

The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other class of shares because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹The Barclays Capital U.S. Universal Index represents the union of the U.S. Aggregate Index, U.S. Corporate High Yield Index, Investment Grade 144A Index, Eurodollar Index, U.S. Emerging Markets Index, and the non-ERISA eligible portion of the CMBS Index. The index covers USD-denominated, taxable bonds that are rated either investment grade or high-yield.

²“Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gains distributions.

³Inception of Class A shares is 6/16/1994. Inception of the Class E shares is 4/28/2008.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A
Actual		0.64%	$	1,000.00	$	1,001.80	$	3.23
Hypothetical*		0.64%		1,000.00		1,021.98		3.26
Class E
Actual		0.79%	$	1,000.00	$	1,000.90	$	3.98
Hypothetical*		0.79%		1,000.00		1,021.22		4.02

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—25.6% of Net Assets

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Aerospace & Defense—0.1%
GeoEye, Inc. 9.625%, 10/01/15		600,000	$	660,000
Airlines—0.2%
American Airlines Pass-Through Trust Series 2011-2 Class A
8.625%, 10/15/21		1,325,000		1,351,500
Continental Airlines, Inc. Series 971B 7.461%, 04/01/12		39,194		38,998
Delta Air Lines, Inc. Series 2002-1 Class C 7.779%, 01/02/12		13,576		13,576
Series 2010 Class 2A 4.950%, 05/23/19		619,591		627,336
				2,031,410
Auto Components—0.0%
Lear Corp. 8.750%, 12/01/16 (a)(b)		2,192,000		0
Beverages—0.2%
Anheuser-Busch InBev Worldwide, Inc. 7.750%, 01/15/19		1,254,000		1,626,433
Building Products—0.3%
Masco Corp. 7.125%, 03/15/20		2,230,000		2,254,030
USG Corp. 8.375%, 10/15/18 (144A)		415,000		383,875
				2,637,905
Capital Markets—2.0%
Goldman Sachs Capital II 5.793%, 06/01/43 (c)(d)		5,300,000		3,286,000
GTP Acquisitions Partners I LLC 7.628%, 06/15/16 (144A)		1,800,000		1,765,398
IPIC GMTN, Ltd. 5.500%, 03/01/22 (144A)		1,680,000		1,688,400
Janus Capital Group, Inc. 6.700%, 06/15/17		360,000		382,463
Jefferies Group, Inc. 5.125%, 04/13/18 (c)		1,125,000		1,001,250
6.875%, 04/15/21		3,325,000		3,025,750
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Series C 5.450%, 02/05/13		1,097,000		1,105,264
Capital Markets—(Continued)
Morgan Stanley 5.500%, 01/26/20		1,100,000	$	1,002,885
Series F 6.625%, 04/01/18		2,054,000		2,030,763
State Street Capital Trust III 5.536%, 12/31/49 (c)(d)		3,570,000		3,514,058
TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. 5.600%, 12/01/19 (c)		500,000		541,492
				19,343,723
Chemicals—0.5%
Cytec Industries, Inc. 8.950%, 07/01/17		1,060,000		1,269,421
Hexion US Finance Corp./Hexion Nova Scotia Finance ULC 8.875%, 02/01/18		1,295,000		1,220,538
9.000%, 11/15/20 (c)		655,000		543,650
Momentive Performance Materials, Inc. 9.000%, 01/15/21		250,000		191,250
Rain CII Carbon LLC 8.000%, 12/01/18 (144A)		1,275,000		1,284,562
				4,509,421
Commercial Banks—2.5%
BanColombia S.A. 5.950%, 06/03/21		2,855,000		2,879,981
International Bank for Reconstruction & Development (The) 3.250%, 04/14/14 (NOK)		30,000,000		5,151,643
Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. 6.500%, 02/24/21 (144A)		275,000		226,060
KeyBank N.A. 5.800%, 07/01/14		1,225,000		1,308,671
KeyCorp. 6.500%, 05/14/13 (c)		865,000		915,466
Mellon Funding Corp. 5.500%, 11/15/18		812,000		901,227
PNC Bank N.A. 6.000%, 12/07/17		699,000		777,410
PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. 8.700%, 03/15/13 (144A)(d)		900,000		917,374
6.750%, 08/01/21 (c)(d)		3,570,000		3,503,873
Series 0 8.250%, 05/21/13 (d)		2,749,000		2,840,280

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Commercial Banks—(Continued)
Sovereign Bank 8.750%, 05/30/18		2,655,000	$	2,986,846
Wachovia Bank N.A. 6.000%, 11/15/17		1,215,000		1,343,303
				23,752,134
Commercial Services & Supplies—0.2%
Avis Budget Car Rental LLC/Avis Budget Finance, Inc. 8.250%, 01/15/19		1,925,000		1,920,188
Iron Mountain, Inc. 7.750%, 10/01/19 (c)		400,000		424,500
				2,344,688
Communications Equipment—0.3%
CommScope, Inc. 8.250%, 01/15/19 (144A)		1,000,000		1,005,000
GTP Towers Issuer LLC 4.436%, 02/15/15 (144A)		1,980,000		1,972,665
				2,977,665
Construction & Engineering—0.1%
Dycom Investments, Inc. 7.125%, 01/15/21		1,000,000		1,015,000
Construction Materials—0.1%
Texas Industries, Inc. 9.250%, 08/15/20 (c)		1,070,000		963,000
Consumer Finance—0.3%
Caterpillar Financial Services Corp. 1.350%, 07/12/13 (CNY)		4,500,000		704,556
Hyundai Capital America 4.000%, 06/08/17 (144A)(c)		200,000		198,139
SLM Corp. Series A 4.000%, 07/25/14 (d)		989,000		919,285
Springleaf Finance Corp. Series J 6.900%, 12/15/17		1,522,000		1,103,450
				2,925,430
Containers & Packaging—0.3%
AEP Industries, Inc. 8.250%, 04/15/19		290,000		295,800
Graphic Packaging International, Inc. 7.875%, 10/01/18 (c)		685,000		732,950
Containers & Packaging—(Continued)
Reynolds Group Issuer, Inc./Reynolds Group Issuer LLC 7.125%, 04/15/19 (144A)		1,300,000	$	1,329,250
Sealed Air Corp. 8.125%, 09/15/19 (144A)		500,000		550,000
				2,908,000
Distributors—0.2%
ACE Hardware Corp. 9.125%, 06/01/16 (144A)		937,000		997,905
NSG Holdings LLC 7.750%, 12/15/25 (144A)		867,000		893,010
				1,890,915
Diversified Consumer Services—0.4%
Board of Trustees of The Leland Stanford Junior University (The) 4.750%, 05/01/19		950,000		1,105,704
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5.600%, 07/01/11		800,000		1,107,105
Service Corp. International 7.000%, 05/15/19		1,475,000		1,559,812
				3,772,621
Diversified Financial Services—1.2%
American Honda Finance Corp. 6.700%, 10/01/13 (144A)		1,300,000		1,403,180
Cantor Fitzgerald L.P. 7.875%, 10/15/19 (144A)		2,450,000		2,396,568
Capital One Bank USA N.A. 8.800%, 07/15/19		720,000		824,831
Glencore Funding LLC 6.000%, 04/15/14 (144A)		1,259,000		1,301,136
Intercorp Retail Trust 8.875%, 11/14/18 (144A)		1,050,000		1,094,625
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 10.365%, 10/04/17 (144A)(TRY)(e)		2,100,000		602,174
NCO Group, Inc. 5.332%, 11/15/13 (c)(d)		2,314,000		2,169,375
Power Receivables Finance LLC 6.290%, 01/01/12 (144A)		56,847		56,847
Scottrade Financial Services, Inc. 6.125%, 07/11/21 (144A)		1,850,000		1,860,164
				11,708,900

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Diversified Telecommunication Services—1.2%
Cincinnati Bell, Inc. 8.250%, 10/15/17		1,442,000	$	1,456,420
8.750%, 03/15/18 (c)		696,000		649,890
8.375%, 10/15/20		1,740,000		1,740,000
Embarq Corp. 7.082%, 06/01/16		972,000		1,054,596
Frontier Communications Corp. 8.500%, 04/15/20		600,000		617,250
8.750%, 04/15/22		1,200,000		1,194,000
GCI, Inc. 8.625%, 11/15/19		370,000		394,512
PAETEC Holding Corp. 9.500%, 07/15/15 (c)		1,632,000		1,717,680
8.875%, 06/30/17		500,000		542,500
9.875%, 12/01/18		500,000		552,500
Windstream Corp. 8.125%, 09/01/18 (c)		400,000		430,500
7.750%, 10/15/20		1,000,000		1,038,750
				11,388,598
Electric Utilities—0.8%
Commonwealth Edison Co. 6.950%, 07/15/18		1,100,000		1,319,967
FPL Energy American Wind LLC 6.639%, 06/20/23 (144A)		370,720		383,689
FPL Energy Wind Funding LLC 6.876%, 06/27/17 (144A)		365,500		305,192
Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad 6.950%, 11/10/21 (144A)		350,000		357,000
New York State Electric & Gas Corp. 6.150%, 12/15/17 (144A)		950,000		1,080,648
Panoche Energy Center LLC 6.885%, 07/31/29 (144A)		861,816		946,803
PPL Capital Funding, Inc. Series A 6.700%, 03/30/67 (c)(d)		450,000		439,452
Public Service Co. of New Mexico 7.950%, 05/15/18		225,000		263,344
Texas Competitive Electric Holdings Co. LLC/TCEH Finance, Inc. 15.000%, 04/01/21 (c)		650,000		360,750
West Penn Power Co. 5.950%, 12/15/17 (144A)		1,197,000		1,415,678
Electric Utilities—(Continued)
White Pine Hydro Portfolio LLC 7.260%, 07/20/15 (144A)		515,000	$	500,117
				7,372,640
Electrical Equipment—0.3%
Belden, Inc. 7.000%, 03/15/17		1,465,000		1,470,494
Coleman Cable, Inc. 9.000%, 02/15/18		971,000		967,359
				2,437,853
Energy Equipment & Services—0.8%
Alta Wind Holdings LLC 7.000%, 06/30/35 (144A)		337,044		371,626
Calfrac Holdings L.P. 7.500%, 12/01/20 (144A)		500,000		490,000
Complete Production Services, Inc. 8.000%, 12/15/16		1,375,000		1,436,875
Deep Drilling 1 Pte, Ltd. 12.000%, 12/21/15		500,000		480,000
Exterran Holdings, Inc. 7.250%, 12/01/18 (c)		1,525,000		1,456,375
Plains All American Pipeline 6.125%, 01/15/17		1,467,000		1,660,319
SESI LLC 7.125%, 12/15/21 (144A)		1,460,000		1,536,650
				7,431,845
Food & Staples Retailing—0.1%
CVS Pass-Through Trust 5.773%, 01/10/33 (144A)		920,018		943,220
Food Products—0.2%
Kraft Foods, Inc. 6.500%, 02/09/40		1,850,000		2,415,580
Gas Utilities—0.3%
Ferrellgas L.P./Ferrellgas Finance Corp. 6.500%, 05/01/21		800,000		708,000
Questar Pipeline Co. 5.830%, 02/01/18 (c)		1,441,000		1,687,938
Star Gas Partners L.P./Star Gas Finance Co. 8.875%, 12/01/17		902,000		920,040
				3,315,978

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Health Care Providers & Services—0.5%
AMERIGROUP Corp. 7.500%, 11/15/19		1,250,000	$	1,293,750
Gentiva Health Services, Inc. 11.500%, 09/01/18		2,300,000		1,900,375
HCA, Inc. 7.190%, 11/15/15		10,000		10,050
8.500%, 04/15/19		417,000		458,700
6.500%, 02/15/20		350,000		364,000
7.875%, 02/15/20		500,000		542,500
8.360%, 04/15/24		50,000		47,500
7.690%, 06/15/25		50,000		44,500
				4,661,375
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—0.2%
Mashantucket Pequot Tribe Series A 8.500%, 11/15/15 (144A) (a)		1,670,000		83,500
Scientific Games Corp. 7.875%, 06/15/16 (144A)		435,000		442,613
Scientific Games International, Inc. 9.250%, 06/15/19 (c)		590,000		628,350
Shingle Springs Tribal Gaming Authority 9.375%, 06/15/15 (144A)		635,000		361,950
Station Casinos, Inc. 6.625%, 03/15/18 (a)(b)		695,000		0
				1,516,413
Household Durables—0.2%
Whirlpool Corp. 5.500%, 03/01/13		1,422,000		1,478,232
Household Products—0.2%
Yankee Acquisition Corp. 9.750%, 02/15/17 (c)		1,684,000		1,650,320
Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders—0.4%
Juniper Generation LLC 6.790%, 12/31/14 (144A)		41,867		34,298
Kiowa Power Partners LLC 5.737%, 03/30/21 (144A)		900,000		930,152
NRG Energy, Inc. 7.625%, 05/15/19 (144A)		2,100,000		2,068,500
Ormat Funding Corp. 8.250%, 12/30/20		986,208		927,036
				3,959,986
Insurance—2.7%
Alterra Finance LLC 6.250%, 09/30/20		2,100,000	$	2,215,653
Blue Fin, Ltd. Series 1 Class B 4.791%, 04/10/12 (144A)(d)		250,000		248,450
Delphi Financial Group, Inc. 7.875%, 01/31/20		2,190,000		2,493,411
Genworth Financial, Inc. 7.200%, 02/15/21		2,640,000		2,413,058
Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. (The) 7.500%, 03/01/20		325,000		373,035
7.625%, 10/15/25		2,016,000		2,304,929
HUB International Holdings, Inc. 10.250%, 06/15/15 (144A)		167,000		166,583
Ironshore Holdings US, Inc. 8.500%, 05/15/20 (144A)		1,635,000		1,795,199
Liberty Mutual Group, Inc. 7.300%, 06/15/14 (144A)		394,000		422,067
7.000%, 03/15/37 (144A)(d)		2,032,000		1,727,200
10.750%, 06/15/58 (144A)(d)		328,000		414,920
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. 7.697%, 10/15/97 (144A)		900,000		853,228
Lincoln National Corp. 6.050%, 04/20/67 (d)		2,382,000		2,000,880
Platinum Underwriters Finance, Inc. 7.500%, 06/01/17 (c)		2,214,000		2,332,650
Protective Life Corp. 7.375%, 10/15/19 (c)		1,925,000		2,139,432
Prudential Financial, Inc. 6.200%, 01/15/15		215,000		235,106
8.875%, 06/15/38 (c)(d)		915,000		1,056,825
Series D 5.150%, 01/15/13		1,300,000		1,346,224
Queen Street IV Capital, Ltd. 7.505%, 04/09/15 (144A)(d)		400,000		389,640
Residential Reinsurance 2011, Ltd. 8.905%, 12/06/15 (144A)(d)		250,000		247,000
USI Holdings Corp. 4.332%, 11/15/14 (144A)(d)		467,000		428,472
				25,603,962
Internet & Catalog Retail—0.4%
Expedia, Inc. 8.500%, 07/01/16		1,165,000		1,256,554
5.950%, 08/15/20 (c)		675,000		681,830

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Internet & Catalog Retail—(Continued)
Ticketmaster Entertainment LLC/Ticketmaster Noteco, Inc. 10.750%, 08/01/16		2,192,000	$	2,345,440
				4,283,824
Internet Software & Services—0.1%
Equinix, Inc. 8.125%, 03/01/18		1,285,000		1,407,075
IT Services—0.3%
Allen Systems Group, Inc. 10.500%, 11/15/16 (144A)		624,000		546,000
First Data Corp. 8.250%, 01/15/21 (144A)(c)		433,000		389,700
SunGard Data Systems, Inc. 10.625%, 05/15/15 (c)		805,000		861,350
10.250%, 08/15/15		802,000		835,083
				2,632,133
Machinery—0.7%
Allison Transmission, Inc. 11.000%, 11/01/15 (144A)		708,000		750,480
American Railcar Industries, Inc. 7.500%, 03/01/14 (c)		1,679,000		1,687,395
Commercial Vehicle Group, Inc. 7.875%, 04/15/19 (144A)		250,000		241,875
Cummins, Inc. 6.750%, 02/15/27		393,000		479,976
Mueller Water Products, Inc. 7.375%, 06/01/17 (c)		1,096,000		1,002,840
Oshkosh Corp. 8.500%, 03/01/20		300,000		310,500
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. 8.125%, 04/01/21		500,000		495,000
Titan International, Inc. 7.875%, 10/01/17		750,000		783,750
Valmont Industries, Inc. 6.625%, 04/20/20		940,000		1,089,765
				6,841,581
Media—0.1%
Time Warner Cable, Inc. 8.750%, 02/14/19		198,000		253,183
8.250%, 04/01/19		313,000		393,690
				646,873
Metals & Mining—0.5%
Alcoa, Inc. 6.150%, 08/15/20 (c)		1,280,000	$	1,332,109
Allegheny Technologies, Inc. 9.375%, 06/01/19		1,135,000		1,451,521
Commercial Metals Co. 7.350%, 08/15/18 (c)		1,315,000		1,243,004
Noranda Aluminum Acquisition Corp. 4.659%, 05/15/15 (f)		477,507		444,081
Old AII, Inc. 9.000%, 12/15/14 (a)(b)		419,000		0
Southern Copper Corp. 5.375%, 04/16/20		395,000		420,561
				4,891,276
Oil & Gas Exploration & Production—0.1%
Swift Energy Co. 7.875%, 03/01/22 (144A)		750,000		744,375
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—3.6%
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. 6.000%, 06/01/19 (c)		820,000		799,500
Arch Coal, Inc. 7.000%, 06/15/19 (144A)		1,350,000		1,383,750
Bill Barrett Corp. 7.625%, 10/01/19		850,000		892,500
Buckeye Partners L.P. 6.050%, 01/15/18		505,000		560,036
Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc. 8.625%, 10/15/18 (144A)		1,130,000		1,141,300
Coffeyville Resources LLC/Coffeyville Finance, Inc. 9.000%, 04/01/15 (144A)		1,975,000		2,103,375
DCP Midstream LLC 9.750%, 03/15/19 (144A)		1,267,000		1,653,906
Enterprise Products Operating LLC 7.000%, 06/01/67 (d)		678,000		668,395
Series A 8.375%, 08/01/66 (c)(d)		1,059,000		1,134,206
Frontier Oil Corp. 6.875%, 11/15/18		400,000		412,000
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners L.P. 5.950%, 02/15/18		1,559,000		1,783,385
5.625%, 04/15/20 (144A)(c)		1,830,000		1,745,602
4.150%, 03/01/22 (c)		2,300,000		2,344,240

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—(Continued)
Linn Energy LLC/Linn Energy Finance Corp. 8.625%, 04/15/20		825,000	$	899,250
Niska Gas Storage US LLC/Niska Gas Storage Canada ULC 8.875%, 03/15/18		1,705,000		1,675,162
Petrohawk Energy Corp. 10.500%, 08/01/14		435,000		486,113
Plains Exploration & Production Co. 8.625%, 10/15/19		1,025,000		1,131,344
6.750%, 02/01/22		3,505,000		3,689,012
Quicksilver Resources, Inc. 7.125%, 04/01/16 (c)		1,017,000		1,017,000
SandRidge Energy, Inc. 4.206%, 04/01/14 (d)		450,000		437,602
8.000%, 06/01/18 (144A)		497,000		504,455
7.500%, 03/15/21		625,000		623,438
Southern Union Co. 3.447%, 11/01/66 (c)(d)		1,437,000		1,347,188
Spectra Energy Capital LLC 6.200%, 04/15/18		1,109,000		1,259,180
Series B 6.750%, 07/15/18		600,000		676,442
Stone Energy Corp. 8.625%, 02/01/17		900,000		922,500
Valero Energy Corp. 9.375%, 03/15/19		1,230,000		1,579,459
W&T Offshore, Inc. 8.500%, 06/15/19 (144A)(c)		600,000		624,000
Williams Cos., Inc. (The) 7.750%, 06/15/31		649,000		809,537
XTO Energy, Inc. 6.250%, 04/15/13		30,000		32,107
				34,335,984
Paper & Forest Products—0.2%
Appleton Papers, Inc. 10.500%, 06/15/15 (144A)		600,000		594,750
Georgia-Pacific LLC 5.400%, 11/01/20 (144A)(c)		800,000		887,692
Graham Packaging Co. L.P./GPC Capital Corp. I 8.250%, 01/01/17		745,000		757,106
				2,239,548
Pharmaceuticals—0.2%
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. 6.875%, 12/01/18 (144A)		1,910,000	$	1,914,775
Real Estate Investment Trusts—1.2%
Developers Diversified Realty Corp. 7.500%, 04/01/17		1,495,000		1,615,685
Digital Realty Trust L.P. 4.500%, 07/15/15		900,000		918,742
5.875%, 02/01/20		350,000		364,745
Health Care REIT, Inc. 6.200%, 06/01/16		535,000		570,469
Healthcare Realty Trust, Inc. 6.500%, 01/17/17		1,130,000		1,214,854
5.750%, 01/15/21		630,000		638,037
Hospitality Properties Trust 7.875%, 08/15/14		2,400,000		2,609,390
Sabra Health Care L.P./Sabra Capital Corp. 8.125%, 11/01/18 (c)		200,000		203,000
Senior Housing Properties Trust 6.750%, 04/15/20		2,235,000		2,281,314
Ventas Realty L.P./Ventas Capital Corp. 6.750%, 04/01/17 (c)		250,000		259,290
Series 1 6.500%, 06/01/16 (c)		375,000		386,979
				11,062,505
Real Estate Management & Development—0.3%
Forest City Enterprises, Inc. 7.625%, 06/01/15		36,000		35,550
University of Southern California 5.250%, 10/01/11		550,000		694,135
WEA Finance LLC 7.125%, 04/15/18 (144A)		1,651,000		1,847,558
				2,577,243
Road & Rail—0.1%
Swift Services Holdings, Inc. 10.000%, 11/15/18		800,000		846,000
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—0.0%
KLA-Tencor Corp. 6.900%, 05/01/18		154,000		177,817

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Tobacco—0.2%
Alliance One International, Inc. 10.000%, 07/15/16		2,465,000	$	2,230,825
Trading Companies & Distributors—0.2%
GATX Corp. 6.000%, 02/15/18		1,896,000		2,105,415
Wireless Telecommunication Services—0.6%
Cricket Communications, Inc. 7.750%, 10/15/20 (c)		450,000		394,875
Crown Castle Towers LLC 6.113%, 01/15/20 (144A)		785,000		867,517
4.883%, 08/15/20 (144A)		1,600,000		1,638,139
MetroPCS Wireless, Inc. 7.875%, 09/01/18 (c)		1,000,000		1,018,750
6.625%, 11/15/20 (c)		875,000		818,125
Richland Towers Funding LLC/Management Funding Series B 7.870%, 03/15/16 (144A)		625,000		640,277
WCP Wireless Site Funding LLC Series B 6.829%, 11/15/15 (144A)		750,000		782,391
				6,160,074
Total Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities (Cost $233,613,639)				244,340,570
Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—21.9%
Airlines—0.1%
TAM Capital 3, Inc. 8.375%, 06/03/21 (144A)		1,260,000		1,285,200
Beverages—0.0%
Argentine Beverages Financial 7.375%, 03/22/12 (144A)		66,400		67,237
Building Products—0.1%
Voto-Votorantim Overseas Trading Operations N.V. 6.625%, 09/25/19 (144A)(c)		500,000		532,500
Capital Markets—0.6%
Gruposura Finance 5.700%, 05/18/21 (144A)(c)		915,000		919,575
Capital Markets—(Continued)
Macquarie Group, Ltd. 7.625%, 08/13/19 (144A)		1,170,000	$	1,202,186
6.000%, 01/14/20 (144A)		1,400,000		1,315,247
6.250%, 01/14/21 (144A)		400,000		382,784
UBS AG 5.433%, 01/15/14		1,500,000		1,500,000
Vimpel-Communications Via VIP Finance Ireland, Ltd. 9.125%, 04/30/18 (144A)		97,000		95,424
				5,415,216
Chemicals—0.4%
Agrium, Inc. 6.750%, 01/15/19		1,582,000		1,911,137
Basell Finance Co. B.V. 8.100%, 03/15/27 (144A)		382,000		418,290
Ineos Group Holdings, Ltd. 7.875%, 02/15/16 (144A)(EUR)		850,000		815,907
Nova Chemicals Corp. 8.375%, 11/01/16		525,000		574,875
				3,720,209
Commercial Banks—1.7%
Asian Development Bank Series GMTN 3.375%, 05/20/14 (NOK)		10,000,000		1,720,903
Banco de Credito del Peru 5.375%, 09/16/20 (144A)		1,230,000		1,212,534
6.875%, 09/16/26 (144A)(d)		1,915,000		1,977,238
9.750%, 11/06/69 (144A)(d)		455,000		518,700
Banco Macro S.A. 10.750%, 06/07/12		500,000		320,000
BBVA Bancomer S.A. 6.500%, 03/10/21 (144A)		2,610,000		2,528,438
Credit Agricole S.A. 8.375%, 10/13/19 (144A)(c)(d)		1,170,000		883,350
Industrial Bank of Korea 7.125%, 04/23/14 (144A)(c)		720,000		789,988
International Bank for Reconstruction & Development (The) Series GDIF 5.750%, 10/21/19 (AUD)		3,000,000		3,280,910
Kazkommerts International B.V. 8.000%, 11/03/15 (144A)		640,000		576,000

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Commercial Banks—(Continued)
Rabobank Nederland 16.572%, 03/03/15 (TRY)(e)		3,600,000	$	1,393,081
Realkredit Danmark A.S. 7.000%, 04/01/32 (DKK)		5,209		1,020
Scotia Bank Peru DPR Finance Co. 3.296%, 03/15/17 (144A)(d)		1,000,000		997,601
				16,199,763
Commercial Services & Supplies—1.6%
Canada Housing Trust No. 1
3.750%, 03/15/20 (144A)(CAD)		7,675,000		8,402,081
3.350%, 12/15/20 (144A)(CAD)		500,000		531,553
Series AUG 3.800%, 06/15/21 (144A)(CAD)		3,750,000		4,121,921
CEVA Group plc
8.500%, 12/01/14 (144A)(EUR)		469,000		413,687
11.500%, 04/01/18 (144A)		1,779,000		1,614,443
				15,083,685
Computers & Peripherals—0.1%
Seagate Technology plc 7.750%, 12/15/18 (144A)		1,205,000		1,287,844
Construction & Engineering—0.3%
Abengoa Finance SAU 8.875%, 11/01/17 (144A)		500,000		502,500
Boart Longyear Management Pty, Ltd. 7.000%, 04/01/21 (144A)		525,000		535,500
Empresas ICA S.A.B. de C.V. 8.900%, 02/04/21 (144A)(c)		1,800,000		1,629,000
				2,667,000
Construction Materials—0.2%
C10 Capital SPV, Ltd. 6.722%, 12/31/16 (144A)(d)		1,128,000		597,840
C8 Capital SPV, Ltd. 6.640%, 12/31/14 (144A)(d)		780,000		429,000
Cemex S.A.B. de C.V. 9.000%, 01/11/18 (144A)		900,000		722,250
Holcim US Finance Sarl & Cie SCS 6.000%, 12/30/19 (144A)		225,000		232,222
				1,981,312
Consumer Finance—0.2%
Banque PSA Finance 5.750%, 04/04/21 (144A)		2,000,000	$	1,809,290
Containers & Packaging—0.3%
Ardagh Packaging Finance plc 9.125%, 10/15/20 (144A)(c)		1,600,000		1,592,000
9.250%, 10/15/20 (144A)(EUR)		400,000		468,271
Nordenia Holdings GMBH 9.750%, 07/15/17 (144A)(EUR)		950,000		1,247,696
				3,307,967
Distributors—0.1%
Marfrig Overseas, Ltd. 9.500%, 05/04/20 (144A)		1,775,000		1,322,375
Diversified Financial Services—1.3%
BM&F BOVESPA S.A. 5.500%, 07/16/20 (144A)		1,500,000		1,552,500
Compass Re, Ltd. 9.010%, 01/08/15 (144A) (d)		300,000		297,240
10.255%, 01/08/15 (144A) (d)		550,000		548,515
Goodman Funding Pty, Ltd. 6.375%, 04/15/21 (144A)(c)		2,450,000		2,497,270
KazMunaiGaz Finance Sub B.V. 7.000%, 05/05/20 (144A)		1,530,000		1,623,713
Successor X, Ltd. Class II—CN3 9.755%, 04/04/13 (144A)(d)		300,000		301,170
Series 2011-1 Class III-R3 12.827%, 01/07/14 (144A)(d)		1,250,000		1,261,500
Series 2011-2 Class IV-AL3 13.000%, 02/25/14 (144A)(d)		250,000		254,550
Series 2011-2, Class IV-E3 9.425%, 02/25/14 (144A)(d)		1,300,000		1,301,560
Series 2011-3, Class II 11.250%, 11/10/15 (144A) (d)		250,000		247,375
Telenet Finance III Luxembourg S.C.A. 6.625%, 02/15/21 (144A)(EUR)		550,000		688,462
TNK-BP Finance S.A. 7.500%, 07/18/16 (144A)		1,090,000		1,152,675
6.625%, 03/20/17 (144A)		375,000		384,375

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Diversified Financial Services—(Continued)
Tyco International Finance S.A. 8.500%, 01/15/19		677,000	$	873,239
				12,984,144
Diversified Telecommunication Services—0.6%
Digicel Group, Ltd. 8.250%, 09/01/17 (144A)(c)		1,350,000		1,370,250
Intelsat Jackson Holdings S.A. 8.500%, 11/01/19 (c)		250,000		265,625
Intelsat Luxembourg S.A. 11.500%, 02/04/17 (f)		2,154,654		2,084,628
Qtel International Finance, Ltd. 6.500%, 06/10/14 (144A)(c)		1,030,000		1,126,305
Telesat Canada 12.500%, 11/01/17		1,220,000		1,369,450
				6,216,258
Electric Utilities—0.8%
Dubai Electricity & Water Authority 8.500%, 04/22/15 (144A)		2,820,000		3,059,700
Intergen N.V. 9.000%, 06/30/17 (144A)		1,686,000		1,782,945
Israel Electric Corp., Ltd. 7.250%, 01/15/19 (144A)		845,000		873,174
9.375%, 01/28/20 (144A)		410,000		473,488
Star Energy Geothermal Wayang Windu, Ltd. 11.500%, 02/12/15 (144A)		1,000,000		1,085,000
				7,274,307
Electrical Equipment—0.0%
Legrand S.A. 8.500%, 02/15/25		20,000		24,497
Energy Equipment & Services—0.9%
Offshore Group Investments, Ltd. 11.500%, 08/01/15		2,000,000		2,172,500
Precision Drilling Corp. 6.625%, 11/15/20 (c)		1,100,000		1,130,250
Sevan Marine ASA 13.130%, 10/24/12 (144A)(NOK)(d)		1,434,783		132,143
Transocean, Inc. 6.375%, 12/15/21		3,100,000		3,301,038
Weatherford International, Ltd. 9.625%, 03/01/19 (c)		1,209,000		1,565,723
				8,301,654
Food Products—0.6%
Bertin S.A./Bertin Finance, Ltd. 10.250%, 10/05/16 (144A)		200,000	$	202,500
Independencia International, Ltd. 12.000%, 12/30/16 (144A)(a)(b)		296,948		3,742
JBS Finance II, Ltd. 8.250%, 01/29/18 (144A)		1,430,000		1,312,025
Minerva Overseas II, Ltd. 10.875%, 11/15/19 (144A)(c)		1,419,000		1,266,457
Viterra, Inc. 5.950%, 08/01/20 (144A)(c)		2,760,000		2,825,307
				5,610,031
Gas Utilities—0.1%
Transportadora de Gas del Sur S.A. 7.875%, 05/14/17 (144A)(c)		921,000		838,110
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—0.6%
Arcos Dorados B.V. 7.500%, 10/01/19 (144A)(c)		682,000		757,020
Codere Finance Luxembourg S.A. 8.250%, 06/15/15 (144A)(EUR)		1,682,000		2,007,261
Lottomatica SpA 8.250%, 03/31/16 (144A)(EUR)(d)		1,957,000		1,979,337
Peermont Global Proprietary, Ltd. 7.750%, 04/30/14 (144A)(EUR)		920,000		954,702
				5,698,320
Household Durables—0.4%
Controladora Mabe S.A. de C.V. 7.875%, 10/28/19 (144A)		2,121,000		2,121,000
Desarrolladora Homex S.A. de C.V. 9.500%, 12/11/19 (144A)		1,055,000		1,036,538
Urbi Desarrollos Urbanos S.A.B de C.V. 9.500%, 01/21/20 (144A)		346,000		352,920
				3,510,458
Insurance—1.7%
ATLAS VI Capital, Ltd. 11.869%, 04/07/14 (144A)(EUR)(d)		250,000		327,238

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Insurance—(Continued)
Blue Fin, Ltd. Series 3 Class B 9.255%, 05/28/13 (144A)(d)		300,000	$	311,340
Caelus Re II, Ltd. 6.494%, 05/24/13 (144A)(d)		550,000		556,325
Foundation Re III, Ltd. Series 2010-1, Class A 5.755%, 02/03/14 (144A)(d)		825,000		824,670
Series 2011-1, Class B 5.010%, 02/25/15 (d)		750,000		745,950
GlobeCat, Ltd. Series USW 9.831%, 02/20/12 (144A)(d)		550,000		544,610
Ibis Re, Ltd. Series 2010-1 Class A 6.205%, 05/03/13 (144A)(d)		400,000		400,720
Lodestone Re, Ltd. Class A 6.255%, 05/17/13 (144A)(d)		925,000		928,515
Class B 8.255%, 05/17/13 (144A)(d)		1,050,000		1,051,785
Series 2010-2 Class A-1 6.010%, 01/08/14 (144A)(d)		1,500,000		1,477,950
Series 2010-2 Class A-2 7.255%, 01/08/14 (144A)(d)		250,000		248,700
Loma Reinsurance, Ltd. 10.027%, 12/21/12 (144A)(d)		750,000		770,250
Montana Re, Ltd. 13.784%, 12/07/12 (144A)(d)		250,000		248,075
Mystic Re. II, Ltd. Series 2009 12.523%, 03/20/12 (144A)(d)		250,000		254,275
Queen Street II Capital, Ltd. 7.505%, 04/09/14 (144A)(d)		725,000		722,825
Queen Street III Capital, Ltd. 4.755%, 07/28/14 (144A)(d)		250,000		247,700
Residential Reinsurance 2010, Ltd. Class 1 6.260%, 06/06/13 (144A)(d)		650,000		653,900
Insurance—(Continued)
Residential Reinsurance 2011, Ltd. Series 1, Class 1 9.005%, 06/06/15 (144A)(d)		675,000	$	685,935
Validus Holdings, Ltd. 8.875%, 01/26/40		1,720,000		1,884,236
White Mountains Re Group, Ltd. 7.506%, 06/30/17 (144A)(d)		3,205,000		2,928,768
				15,813,767
Machinery—0.2%
Ingersoll-Rand Global Holding Co., Ltd. 9.500%, 04/15/14		910,000		1,058,313
WPE International Cooperatief UA 10.375%, 09/30/20 (144A)		900,000		810,000
				1,868,313
Media—0.4%
Grupo Televisa S.A. 6.000%, 05/15/18		1,080,000		1,212,969
Myriad International Holding B.V. 6.375%, 07/28/17 (144A)(c)		1,530,000		1,637,100
Nara Cable Funding, Ltd. 8.875%, 12/01/18 (144A)(EUR)		1,260,000		1,438,280
				4,288,349
Metals & Mining—1.7%
Algoma Acquisition Corp. 9.875%, 06/15/15 (144A)		1,415,000		1,223,975
ALROSA Finance S.A. 8.875%, 11/17/14 (144A)		770,000		841,225
7.750%, 11/03/20 (144A)		640,000		640,000
Anglo American Capital plc 9.375%, 04/08/14 (144A)		845,000		965,102
AngloGold Ashanti Holdings plc 5.375%, 04/15/20		1,615,000		1,607,083
ArcelorMittal 6.125%, 06/01/18 (c)		1,500,000		1,483,278
5.500%, 03/01/21 (c)		1,390,000		1,278,125
Essar Steel Algoma, Inc. 9.375%, 03/15/15 (144A)		450,000		438,750
Gold Fields Orogen Holding BVI, Ltd. 4.875%, 10/07/20 (144A)		2,875,000		2,542,831

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Metals & Mining—(Continued)
Novelis, Inc. 8.375%, 12/15/17		1,160,000	$	1,238,300
Quadra FNX Mining, Ltd. 7.750%, 06/15/19 (144A)		2,100,000		2,386,125
Vedanta Resources plc 9.500%, 07/18/18 (144A)(c)		1,330,000		1,157,100
8.250%, 06/07/21 (144A)(c)		700,000		549,500
				16,351,394
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—1.0%
Aker Drilling ASA 10.330%, 02/24/16 (NOK)(d)		2,000,000		351,653
Bumi Capital Pte, Ltd. 12.000%, 11/10/16 (144A)		875,000		892,500
Bumi Investment Pte, Ltd. 10.750%, 10/06/17 (144A)		500,000		505,000
Canadian Natural Resources, Ltd. 5.900%, 02/01/18		717,000		846,152
DDI Holdings A.S. 9.300%, 01/19/12 (144A)		857,297		848,724
Expro Finance Luxembourg SCA 8.500%, 12/15/16 (144A)		1,745,000		1,544,325
Gazprom OAO Via Gaz Capital S.A. 8.146%, 04/11/18 (144A)(c)		190,000		214,700
Gazprom OAO Via Gazprom International S.A. 7.201%, 02/01/20		651,672		693,216
Nakilat, Inc. Series A 6.067%, 12/31/33 (144A)		520,000		557,700
6.267%, 12/31/33 (144A)		1,343,230		1,445,427
Norwegian Energy Co. ASA 12.900%, 11/20/14 (NOK)		4,000,000		616,250
Seven Seas Petroleum Corp. Series B 12.500%, 05/15/05 (a)(b)		60,000		0
Tengizchevroil Finance Co. SARL 6.124%, 11/15/14 (144A)		1,145,673		1,178,611
				9,694,258
Pharmaceuticals—0.1%
Warner Chilcott Co. LLC/Warner Chilcott Finance LLC 7.750%, 09/15/18		1,075,000		1,103,219
Provincial—0.4%
Province of Ontario 5.500%, 04/23/13 (AUD)		3,356,000	$	3,514,992
Real Estate Investment Trusts—0.2%
Dexus Property Group 7.125%, 10/15/14 (144A)		1,940,000		2,119,958
Real Estate Management & Development—0.0%
Alto Palermo S.A. Series 2 11.000%, 06/11/12 (144A)		61,124		19,242
Road & Rail—0.2%
Inversiones Alsacia S.A. 8.000%, 08/18/18 (144A)		1,940,000		1,465,284
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—0.0%
LDK Solar Co., Ltd. 10.000%, 02/28/14 (CNY)		2,000,000		160,321
Sovereign—4.7%
Australia Government Bond Series 123 5.750%, 04/15/12 (AUD)		85,000		87,562
Brazilian Government International Bond 10.250%, 01/10/28 (BRL)		8,250,000		5,042,219
Canadian Government Bond 2.000%, 06/01/16 (CAD)		3,780,000		3,837,284
4.250%, 06/01/18 (CAD)		1,485,000		1,704,205
Canadian Treasury Bill 16.772%, 02/16/12 (CAD)(e)		3,000,000		2,947,249
Dominican Republic International Bond 7.500%, 05/06/21 (144A)		900,000		888,750
Indonesia Recapitalization Bond Series FR19 14.250%, 06/15/13 (IDR)		7,600,000,000		948,990
Series FR20 14.275%, 12/15/13 (IDR)		4,350,000,000		561,060
Indonesia Treasury Bond Series FR 55 7.375%, 09/15/16 (IDR)		2,600,000,000		310,166
Series FR23 11.000%, 12/15/12 (IDR)		4,800,000,000		561,462
Series FR33 12.500%, 03/15/13 (IDR)		2,400,000,000		288,810

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Sovereign—(Continued)
Series FR49 9.000%, 09/15/13 (IDR)		1,900,000,000	$	223,461
Ireland Government Bond 5.900%, 10/18/19 (EUR)		2,980,000		3,305,008
4.500%, 04/18/20 (EUR)		1,825,000		1,812,427
5.000%, 10/18/20 (EUR)		1,820,000		1,911,621
Italy Buoni Poliennali Del Tesoro 5.000%, 03/01/22 (EUR)		3,300,000		3,683,023
Kingdom of the Netherlands 5.000%, 07/15/12 (EUR)		130,000		172,845
Norwegian Government Bond 5.000%, 05/15/15 (NOK)		7,150,000		1,330,261
4.250%, 05/19/17 (NOK)		9,440,000		1,763,341
4.500%, 05/22/19 (NOK)		2,050,000		394,532
Queensland Treasury Corp. Series 13G 6.000%, 08/14/13 (AUD)		138,000		145,498
Russian Foreign Bond—Eurobond 7.500%, 03/31/30 (144A)(g)		999,912		1,163,648
Singapore Government Bond 1.625%, 04/01/13 (SGD)		1,850,000		1,451,325
Sweden Government Bond Series 1041 6.750%, 05/05/14 (SEK)		15,000,000		2,476,348
Series 1046 5.500%, 10/08/12 (SEK)		14,715,000		2,211,857
Series 1049 4.500%, 08/12/15 (SEK)		25,000,000		4,095,976
Series 1051 3.750%, 08/12/17 (SEK)		11,400,000		1,879,703
United Mexican States 7.500%, 01/14/12		84,000		84,021
				45,282,652
Trading Companies & Distributors—0.2%
Metinvest B.V. 10.250%, 05/20/15 (144A)		550,000		523,765
8.750%, 02/14/18 (144A)		1,200,000		991,800
				1,515,565
Wireless Telecommunication Services—0.1%
Bakrie Telecom Pte, Ltd. 11.500%, 05/07/15 (144A)		1,025,000		650,875
Wireless Telecommunication Services—(Continued)
VimpelCom Holdings BV 7.504%, 03/01/22 (144A)		800,000	$	676,000
				1,326,875
Total Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities (Cost $207,353,651)				209,661,566
Mortgage-Backed Securities—12.2%
Collateralized Mortgage Obligations—9.1%
Adjustable Rate Mortgage Trust Series 2004-4 Class 1A1 2.546%, 03/25/35 (d)		460,304		408,414
American Home Mortgage Investment Trust Series 2005-1 Class 7A1 2.801%, 06/25/45 (d)		1,067,332		937,661
Banc of America Alternative Loan Trust Series 2003-2 Class CB1 5.750%, 04/25/33		1,154,108		1,212,743
Series 2003-7 Class 1CB1 5.500%, 09/25/33		989,128		1,023,811
Series 2004-10 Class 2CB1 6.000%, 11/25/34		227,909		233,903
Series 2004-12 Class 4A1 5.500%, 01/25/20		963,638		972,265
Series 2004-2 1Class A1 6.000%, 03/25/34		1,317,805		1,357,611
Series 2004-3 Class 1A1 6.000%, 04/25/34		408,950		402,924
Series 2004-4 Class 6A1 5.250%, 05/25/34		1,039,401		1,055,559
Series 2004-6 Class 4A1 5.000%, 07/25/19		1,317,959		1,337,708
Banc of America Funding Corp. Series 2005-6 Class 1A6 5.750%, 10/25/35		624,579		616,396
Series 2005-8 Class 1A1 5.500%, 01/25/36		1,173,189		1,150,022
Series 2010-R4 Class 7A1 0.387%, 08/26/36 (144A)(d)		1,106,497		1,047,189
Banc of America Mortgage Securities, Inc. Series 2003-I Class 2A6 2.788%, 10/25/33 (d)		1,678,011		1,537,598

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Collateralized Mortgage Obligations—(Continued)
Series 2004-11 Class 2A1 5.750%, 01/25/35		1,787,566	$	1,833,705
Series 2004-E Class 1A1 2.748%, 06/25/34 (d)		366,548		346,833
Series 2005-9 Class 2A1 4.750%, 10/25/20		645,251		623,114
Series 2005-D Class 2A5 2.872%, 05/25/35 (d)		416,606		405,537
Series 2005-H Class 4A2 5.103%, 09/25/35 (d)		449,810		421,092
Bear Stearns Adjustable Rate Mortgage Trust Series 2004-12 Class 4A1 5.163%, 02/25/35 (d)		447,783		422,606
Charlie Mac Series 2004-2 Class A1 5.000%, 10/25/34		712,867		728,853
Chase Mortgage Finance Corp. Series 2003-S11 Class 1A1 5.000%, 10/25/33		320,738		331,640
Citicorp Mortgage Securities, Inc. Series 2006-1 Series 3A1 5.000%, 02/25/36		196,736		195,618
Series 2007-2 Class 2A1 5.500%, 02/25/22		190,803		187,490
Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Inc. Series 2005-7 Class 2A1A 2.633%, 09/25/35 (d)		750,709		686,698
Countrywide Alternative Loan Trust Series 2003-16T1 Class A5 5.250%, 09/25/33		1,110,392		1,150,976
Series 2003-21T1 Series A8 5.750%, 12/25/33		1,277,662		1,321,064
Series 2003-23T2 Class A1 4.250%, 09/25/33		621,300		630,616
Series 2004-12CB Class 1A3 5.000%, 07/25/19		1,000,000		1,015,052
Series 2004-14T2 Class A11 5.500%, 08/25/34		1,192,818		1,124,505
Series 2004-28CB Class 1A1 5.500%, 01/25/35		944,546		957,930
Series 2004-2CB Class 1A4 0.694%, 03/25/34 (d)		372,294		353,631
Series 2004-2CB Class 1A9 5.750%, 03/25/34		393,710		377,626
Collateralized Mortgage Obligations—(Continued)
Series 2004-2CB1 Class A2 5.125%, 03/25/34		1,368,869	$	1,393,270
Series 2005-11CB Class 2A3 5.500%, 06/25/35		396,032		372,210
Series 2005-1CB Class 2A4 5.500%, 03/25/35		719,960		612,668
Countrywide Home Loan Mortgage Pass-Through Trust Series 2003-42 Class 1A1 2.908%, 09/25/33 (d)		11,011		8,444
Series 2004-J2 Class A8 5.500%, 03/25/34		456,664		459,526
Series 2005-J3 Class 2A4 4.500%, 09/25/35		802,233		644,721
Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp. Series 2005-7 Class 3A1 5.000%, 08/25/20		482,249		478,045
Credit Suisse Mortgage Capital Certificates Series 2007-3 Class 4A1 5.000%, 04/25/37		332,833		311,509
Series 2010-16 Class A2 4.063%, 06/25/50 (144A)(d)		1,750,000		1,660,494
Deutsche Alt-A Securities, Inc. Alternate Loan Trust Series 2005-5 Class 1A4 5.500%, 11/25/35 (d)		719,905		600,692
Downey Savings & Loan Association Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2005-AR6 Class 2A1B 0.655%, 10/19/45 (d)		428,482		124,411
First Horizon Mortgage Asset Securities, Inc. Series 2006-1 Class 1A8 6.000%, 05/25/36		557,055		512,724
FREMF Mortgage Trust Series 2010-K7 Class B 5.435%, 04/25/20 (144A)(d)		600,000		560,786
Series 2010-K8 Class B 5.237%, 09/25/43 (d)		400,000		367,327
Series 2010-K9 Class B 5.164%, 09/25/45 (144A)(d)		900,000		820,372
Series 2011-K10 Class B 4.598%, 11/25/49 (144A)(d)		1,050,000		914,123

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Collateralized Mortgage Obligations—(Continued)
Series 2011-K12 Class B 4.347%, 01/25/46 (144A)(d)		680,000	$	577,989
Series 2011-K14 Class B 5.159%, 02/25/47 (144A)(d)		400,000		360,230
Series 2011-K701 Class B 4.287%, 07/25/48 (144A)(d)		825,000		749,266
Series 2011-K701 Class C 4.287%, 07/25/48 (144A)(d)		1,000,000		836,865
Series 2011-K703 Class B 4.887%, 07/25/44 (144A)(d)		600,000		558,277
GMAC Mortgage Corp. Loan Trust Series 2005-AR2 Class 4A 4.954%, 05/25/35 (d)		797,243		714,904
Series 2010-1 Class A 4.250%, 07/25/40 (144A)		2,323		2,320
GSR Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2004-3F Class B1 5.718%, 02/25/34 (d)		204,263		176,164
Series 2005-AR4 Class 6A1 5.250%, 07/25/35 (d)		1,470,755		1,356,965
Series 2005-AR6 Class 2A1 2.685%, 09/25/35 (d)		1,884,913		1,649,209
Series 2006-1F Class 2A16 6.000%, 02/25/36		601,572		551,283
Impac CMB Trust Series 2004-4 Class 1A1 0.934%, 09/25/34 (d)		132,311		97,781
Series 2004-5 Class 1A1 1.014%, 10/25/34 (d)		513,315		444,405
Impac Secured Assets CMN Owner Trust Series 2006-1 Class 2A1 0.644%, 05/25/36 (d)		472,037		398,376
Indymac Index Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2004-AR1 Class 2A1 0.894%, 04/25/34 (d)		41,572		26,968
Jefferies & Co., Inc. Series 2009-R2 Class 4A 4.014%, 05/26/37 (144A)(d)		414,237		409,589
JPMorgan Alternative Loan Trust Series 2006-S1 Class 1A12 6.000%, 03/25/36		706,919		504,408
JPMorgan Mortgage Trust Series 2004-S1 Class 2A1 6.000%, 09/25/34		1,014,104		1,038,727
Collateralized Mortgage Obligations—(Continued)
Series 2005-A1 Class 5A1 4.445%, 02/25/35 (d)		171,072	$	169,561
Series 2005-A7 Class 1A2 2.742%, 10/25/35 (d)		1,000,000		935,736
Series 2005-A8 Class 2A1 2.592%, 11/25/35 (d)		536,063		518,398
MASTER Alternative Loans Trust Series 2004-10 Class 2A1 5.500%, 10/25/19		1,059,371		1,087,287
Series 2004-13 Class 4A1 6.015%, 01/25/35(d)		511,730		527,324
Series 2004-6 Class 7A1 6.000%, 07/25/34		1,270,135		1,266,427
Series 2005-1 Class 1A1 5.500%, 02/25/35		1,298,161		1,335,291
MASTER Seasoned Securitization Trust Series 2005-1 Class 1A1 6.769%, 09/25/32 (d)		822,447		862,867
Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc. Series 2005-A2 Class A2 2.606%, 02/25/35 (d)		1,608,584		1,356,333
Morgan Stanley Reremic Trust Series 2010-R9 Class 3B 5.000%, 11/26/36 (144A)		2,100,000		2,028,915
PHH Mortgage Capital LLC Series 2007-1SLW Class A1 6.600%, 12/25/27 (144A)		933,487		911,858
Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. Series 2002-QS14 Class A12 5.500%, 09/25/32		244,191		249,717
Series 2004-QS16 Class 1A1
5.500%, 12/25/34		1,159,187		1,175,049
Series 2004-QS5 Class A3
5.750%, 04/25/34		450,000		445,487
Series 2004-QS5 Class A5
4.750%, 04/25/34		731,362		738,340
Series 2004-QS5 Class A6
0.894%, 04/25/34 (d)		479,840		439,322
Series 2005-QR1 Class A
6.000%, 10/25/34		1,840,542		1,872,940
Residential Asset Securitization Trust Series 2004-A10 Class A1 5.500%, 02/25/35		685,643		696,311

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Collateralized Mortgage Obligations—(Continued)
Series 2004-A7 Class A3
0.744%, 10/25/34 (d)		686,478	$	601,137
Series 2005-A9 Class A1
5.500%, 07/25/35		967,942		866,265
Residential Funding Mortgage Securities I Series 2005-S6 Class A7 5.500%, 08/25/35		186,752		188,205
Sasco Net Interest Margin Trust Series 2003-BC1 Class B 0.000%, 05/27/33 (144A)(b)(e)		47,096		15
Sequoia Mortgage Trust Series 2003-5 Class A1 0.905%, 09/20/33 (d)		377,972		332,657
Series 2005-2 Class A1
0.505%, 03/20/35 (d)		409,058		322,705
Series 2005-3 Class A1
0.485%, 05/20/35 (d)		282,951		201,242
Series 2011-2 Class A1
3.900%, 09/25/41 (d)		559,469		564,624
Structured Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2004-1 Class 3A3 2.543%, 02/25/34 (d)		382,954		304,384
Series 2004-A1 Class 3AC
1.618%, 03/25/34 (d)		1,049,639		929,113
Structured Asset Securities Corp. Series 2003-22A Class 3A 2.566%, 06/25/33 (d)		875,189		806,703
Series 2003-31A Class 3A
2.543%, 10/25/33 (d)		1,227,106		1,097,188
Series 2005-15 Class 4A1
6.000%, 08/25/35		436,045		368,645
Series 2005-6 Class 4A1
5.000%, 05/25/35		1,222,503		1,205,775
Thornburg Mortgage Securities Trust Series 2004-1 Class II2A 1.744%, 03/25/44 (d)		1,105,229		937,792
Series 2004-1 Class II4A
4.154%, 03/25/44 (d)		269,368		257,201
Vericrest Opportunity Loan Transferee Series 2011-NL1A Class A1 5.926%, 12/26/50 (144A)(d)		285,872		286,494
Collateralized Mortgage Obligations—(Continued)
WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2003-S3 Class 3A1 5.500%, 05/25/33		1,314,075	$	1,376,339
Series 2004-AR12 Class A2A
0.640%, 10/25/44 (d)		146,950		101,687
Series 2004-AR14 Class A1
2.479%, 01/25/35 (d)		2,392,486		2,177,562
Series 2004-AR3 Class A2
2.563%, 06/25/34 (d)		1,220,868		1,186,180
Series 2005-AR10 Class 1A2
2.500%, 09/25/35 (d)		425,000		358,103
Series 2005-AR10 Class 1A4
2.500%, 09/25/35 (d)		219,750		174,121
Series 2005-AR7 Class A2
2.550%, 08/25/35 (d)		752,459		672,641
Wells Fargo Mortgage Backed Securities Trust Series 2004-E Class A2 4.500%, 05/25/34 (d)		153,442		153,605
Series 2004-H Class A1
2.759%, 06/25/34 (d)		108,544		102,365
Series 2004-V Class 1A2
2.712%, 10/25/34 (d)		316,581		306,199
Series 2005-9 Class 1A14
5.500%, 10/25/35		347,632		345,157
Series 2005-9 Class 2A6
5.250%, 10/25/35		674,218		648,516
Series 2005-AR10 Class 2A16
2.689%, 06/25/35 (d)		1,004,164		917,592
Series 2005-AR15 Class 1A4
5.036%, 09/25/35 (d)		301,542		292,642
Series 2005-AR16 Class 3A2
2.690%, 03/25/35 (d)		1,510,165		1,369,220
Series 2005-AR6 Class A1
5.009%, 04/25/35 (d)		189,935		181,431
Series 2006-2 Class 3A1
5.750%, 03/25/36		2,506,678		2,443,556
Series 2006-AR6 Class 5A1
4.547%, 03/25/36 (d)		1,579,437		1,402,452
				86,800,114
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities—3.1%
American Tower Trust Series 2007-1A Class D 5.957%, 04/15/37 (144A)		1,082,000		1,149,541

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)
Bayview Commercial Asset Trust Series 2004-1 Class A 0.654%, 04/25/34 (144A) (d)		605,610	$	471,348
Series 2006-SP1 Class IO
2.930%, 04/25/36 (144A)(d)(h)		4,421,833		143,021
Series 2007-2A Class IO 3.573%, 07/25/37 (144A)(h)		8,205,644		626,091
Series 2007-4A Class A1 0.744%, 09/25/37 (144A)(d)		1,124,934		767,296
Series 2007-4A Class IO 3.855%, 09/25/37 (144A)(h)		11,599,807		1,074,142
Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. Series 2002-TOP6 Class E 7.090%, 10/15/36 (144A)(d)		900,000		886,048
Series 2006-PW12 Class AJ 5.759%, 09/11/38 (d)		575,000		452,794
Series 2007-PW16 Class A4 5.715%, 06/11/40 (d)		900,000		989,289
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2000-C1 Class G 6.850%, 08/15/33 (144A) (d)		300,000		270,683
Series 2011-THL Class E 5.949%, 06/09/28 (144A)		100,000		100,247
Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp. Series 2002-CKN2 Class H 6.122%, 04/15/37 (144A)(d)		70,000		46,710
Series 2002-CKP1 Class G 7.165%, 12/15/35 (144A)(d)		400,000		401,268
Series 2003-C3 Class F 4.518%, 05/15/38 (144A)(d)		250,000		236,862
Credit Suisse Mortgage Capital Certificates Series 2006-C5 Class AM 5.343%, 12/15/39		800,000		728,218
CW Capital Cobalt, Ltd. Series 2006-C1 Class A2 5.174%, 08/15/48		217,718		220,951
DBUBS Mortgage Trust Series 2011-LC1A Class C 5.557%, 11/10/46 (144A)(d)		600,000		568,656
Series 2011-LC3A Class B 5.414%, 08/10/44 (144A)(d)		1,400,000		1,345,938
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)
Extended Stay America Trust Series 2010-ESHA Class C 4.860%, 11/05/27 (144A)		800,000	$	812,373
GMAC Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. Series 2003-C1 Class H 5.310%, 05/10/36 (144A)(d)		792,000		759,231
Series 2003-C2 Class G 5.469%, 05/10/40 (144A)(d)		425,000		382,858
Series 2003-C3 Class E 5.307%, 04/10/40 (d)		450,000		434,046
GS Mortgage Securities Corp. II Series 2006-GG8 Class A4 5.560%, 11/10/39		800,000		881,416
Series 2006-GG8 Class AM 5.591%, 11/10/39		1,270,000		1,290,486
Series 2011-ALF Class D 4.209%, 02/10/21 (144A)		850,000		805,715
JPMorgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp. Series 2003-CB6 Class G 5.534%, 07/12/37 (144A)(d)		350,000		274,354
Series 2006-FL2A Class G 0.638%, 11/15/18 (144A)(d)		773,876		678,429
Series 2010-C2 Class A2 3.616%, 11/15/43 (144A)		1,000,000		1,040,956
Series 2010-C2 Class C 5.528%, 11/15/43 (144A)(d)		300,000		290,820
Series 2011-CCHP Class D 4.650%, 07/15/28 (144A)(d)		850,000		833,525
LB-UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust Series 2002-C4 Class J 5.616%, 10/15/35 (144A)(d)		1,700,000		1,647,308
Lehman Brothers Small Balance Commercial Series 2006-2A Class 1A 0.494%, 09/25/36 (144A)(d)		477,300		356,181
Series 2006-3A Class 2A2 5.410%, 12/25/36 (144A)(d)		527,452		520,860
Series 2007-3A Class 1A2 1.144%, 10/25/37 (144A)(d)		259,854		260,157
LSTAR Commercial Mortgage Trust Series 2011-1 Class C 5.677%, 06/25/43 (144A)(d)		942,000		877,961

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)
Merrill Lynch Financial Assets, Inc. Series 2007-CA22 Class A2 4.711%, 03/12/49 (CAD)(d)		350,000	$	354,268
Merrill Lynch Mortgage Trust Series 2003-KEY1 Class B 5.334%, 11/12/35 (d)		750,000		732,620
Series 2005-MCP1 Class A2 4.556%, 06/12/43		240,360		242,387
Merrill Lynch/Countrywide Commercial Mortgage Trust Series 2006-1 Class A2 5.439%, 02/12/39 (d)		66,825		66,876
Morgan Stanley Capital I Series 2007-XLF9 Class B 0.879%, 12/15/20 (144A)(d)		455,000		404,313
Series 2007-XLF9 Class C 0.979%, 12/15/20 (144A)(d)		700,000		615,078
Timberstar Trust Series 2006-1A Class A 5.668%, 10/15/36 (144A)		540,000		605,661
Series 2006-1A Class F 7.530%, 10/15/36 (144A)		1,549,000		1,436,703
Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust Series 2010-C1 Class C 5.587%, 11/15/43 (144A)(d)		950,000		930,962
WF-DB Commercial Mortgage Trust Series 2011-BXR Class D 5.914%, 07/05/24 (144A)		1,000,000		1,020,752
WF-RBS Commercial Mortgage Trust Series 2011-C2 Class C 5.392%, 02/15/44 (144A)(d)		250,000		225,211
Series 2011-C4 Class D 5.250%, 06/15/44 (144A)(d)		400,000		325,636
				29,586,246
Total Mortgage-Backed Securities (Cost $118,074,173)				116,386,360
Loan Participation—11.4%
Aerospace & Defense—0.4%
DAE Aviation Holdings, Inc. 5.430%, 07/31/14 (d)		2,051,251		2,010,226
DigitalGlobe, Inc. 4.500%, 10/07/18 (d)		1,190,000		1,173,144
Aerospace & Defense—(Continued)
DynCorp International LLC 6.271%, 07/07/16 (d)		358,788	$	353,083
Hunter Defense Technologies, Inc. 3.830%, 08/22/14 (d)		666,439		606,460
				4,142,913
Airlines—0.2%
Allegiant Travel Co. 5.750%, 03/10/17 (d)		992,500		982,575
Delta Air Lines, Inc. 4.250%, 03/07/16 (d)		908,137		849,109
				1,831,684
Auto Components—0.3%
Delphi Corp. 3.500%, 03/31/17 (d)		1,159,500		1,157,761
Federal-Mogul Corp. 2.209%, 12/29/14 (d)		570,960		529,834
2.216%, 12/28/15 (d)		291,306		270,323
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (The) 1.930%, 04/30/14 (d)		750,000		726,874
Remy International, Inc. 6.250%, 12/16/16 (d)		643,500		635,993
				3,320,785
Automobiles—0.5%
Chrysler Group LLC 6.000%, 05/24/17 (d)		3,099,425		2,941,354
Tomkins LLC 4.250%, 09/29/16 (d)		405,573		404,983
UCI International, Inc. 5.500%, 07/26/17 (d)		990,000		994,024
				4,340,361
Biotechnology—0.3%
Grifols, Inc. 6.000%, 06/01/17(d)		2,582,025		2,581,625
Building Products—0.0%
Hillman Group, Inc. 5.226%, 05/27/16 (d)		271,562		268,847
Capital Markets—0.0%
LPL Investment Holdings, Inc. 5.250%, 06/28/17 (d)		429,241		430,314

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Loan Participation—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Chemicals—0.4%
Chemtura Corp. 5.500%, 08/27/16 (d)		855,000	$	860,344
Huntsman International LLC 2.883%, 04/19/17 (d)		156,281		150,086
Ineos Holdings, Ltd. 7.501%, 12/16/13 (EUR) (d)		385,197		503,258
8.001%, 12/16/14 (EUR) (d)		425,973		559,295
Ineos U.S. Finance LLC 7.501%, 12/16/13 (d)		337,356		343,513
8.001%, 12/16/14 (d)		338,400		346,267
Univar, Inc. 5.000%, 06/30/17 (d)		1,197,900		1,158,220
				3,920,983
Commercial Services & Supplies—0.2%
Autotrader.com, Inc 4.000%, 12/15/16 (d)		372,187		372,885
Synagro Technologies, Inc. 2.280%, 04/02/14 (d)		215,880		185,521
Waste Industries USA, Inc. 4.750%, 03/17/17 (d)		923,025		909,180
				1,467,586
Communications Equipment—0.1%
CommScope, Inc. 5.000%, 01/14/18 (d)		630,237		627,086
Computers & Peripherals—0.0%
Dealer Computer Services, Inc. 3.750%, 04/20/18 (d)		125,636		125,322
Construction Materials—0.4%
Fairmount Minerals, Ltd. 5.250%, 03/15/17 (d)		1,162,500		1,160,425
Preferred Sands Holding Compa 6.000%, 12/15/16 (d)		2,345,000		2,292,238
U.S. Silica Co. 4.750%, 06/01/17 (d)		373,125		372,192
				3,824,855
Containers & Packaging—0.6%
BWAY Corp. 4.500%, 02/23/18 (d)		257,484		254,600
Exopack LLC 6.500%, 05/31/17 (d)		3,517,325		3,446,979
Ranpak Corp. 4.750%, 04/20/17 (d)		823,318		801,705
Containers & Packaging—(Continued)
Reynolds Group Holdings, Inc. 6.500%, 02/09/18 (d)		746,184	$	743,233
				5,246,517
Diversified Consumer Services—0.1%
Affinion Group, Inc. 3.500%, 10/10/16 (d)		1,381,048		1,236,611
Diversified Financial Services—0.1%
MSCI, Inc. 3.750%, 03/14/17 (d)		440,797		444,213
Race Point Power 8.035%, 01/11/18 (d)		975,784		967,246
				1,411,459
Diversified Telecommunication Services—0.2%
Intelsat Jackson Holdings, Ltd. 3.391%, 02/03/14 (d)		450,000		429,750
Telesat Canada 3.300%, 10/31/14 (d)		1,702,594		1,685,568
				2,115,318
Electric Utilities—0.1%
Texas Competitive Electric Holdings Co. LLC/ TCEH Finance, Inc. 4.776%, 10/10/17 (d)		1,710,495		1,087,387
Electrical Equipment—0.1%
Generac CCMP Acquisition Corp. 2.804%, 11/11/13 (d)		408,706		404,926
Pelican Products, Inc. 5.000%, 03/07/17 (d)		831,600		826,057
				1,230,983
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—0.4%
Aeroflex, Inc. 4.250%, 05/09/18 (d)		1,094,500		1,037,586
Flextronics International, Ltd. 2.546%, 10/01/14 (d)		2,119,412		2,080,340
Vertafore, Inc. 5.250%, 07/29/16 (d)		376,201		369,053
				3,486,979
Energy Equipment & Services—0.3%
Frac Tech International LLC 6.250%, 05/06/16 (d)		2,903,309		2,869,326

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Loan Participation—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Food & Staples Retailing—0.1%
Rite Aid Corp. 4.500%, 03/02/18 (d)		1,146,861	$	1,095,826
Food Products—0.2%
Darling International, Inc. 5.750%, 12/16/16 (d)		200,000		200,920
Del Monte Foods Co. 4.500%, 03/08/18 (d)		741,275		706,064
Pierre Foods, Inc. 7.001%, 09/30/16 (d)		1,386,000		1,384,704
				2,291,688
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—0.2%
Fresenius U.S. Finance I, Inc. 3.500%, 09/10/14 (d)		463,450		462,871
Immucor, Inc. 5.750%, 08/17/18 (d)		1,571,062		1,582,649
				2,045,520
Health Care Providers & Services—2.1%
AccentCare, Inc. 5.000%, 02/24/17 (d)		587,708		534,815
Alliance Healthcare Services, Inc. 7.250%, 06/01/16 (d)		974,968		854,316
Ardent Medical Services, Inc. 5.000%, 09/15/15 (d)		830,225		824,521
5.000%, 09/18/15 (d)		443,877		440,828
Aveta Holdings LLC 8.500%, 04/14/15 (d)		1,440,508		1,426,104
Carestream Health, Inc. 5.000%, 02/25/17 (d)		843,501		760,395
CDRL MS, Inc. 6.750%, 09/30/16 (d)		421,656		418,241
Gentiva Health Services, Inc. 4.750%, 08/17/16 (d)		2,751,668		2,473,062
Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc. 4.010%, 12/01/16 (d)		1,240,625		1,196,173
HCA, Inc. 3.829%, 03/31/17 (d)		251,355		239,102
3.546%, 05/01/18 (d)		104,810		99,530
Iasis Healthcare LLC 5.000%, 05/03/18 (d)		719,563		697,080
IMS Health, Inc. 4.500%, 08/25/17 (d)		652,333		651,569
inVentiv Health, Inc. 6.500%, 08/04/16 (d)		1,712,699		1,644,191
Health Care Providers & Services—(Continued)
Kindred Healthcare, Inc. 5.250%, 06/01/18 (d)		1,615,950	$	1,508,223
Prime Healthcare Services, Inc. 7.250%, 04/22/15 (d)		1,221,111		1,178,372
Renal Advantage Holdings, Inc. 5.750%, 12/16/16 (d)		941,741		942,136
Select Medical Corp. 3.750%, 05/25/18 (d)		1,820,438		1,738,518
Universal Health Services, Inc. 3.753%, 11/15/16 (d)		992,097		991,561
Virtual Radiologic Corp. 5.500%, 11/03/16 (d)		1,339,875		1,269,531
				19,888,268
Health Care Technology—0.1%
MedAssets, Inc. 5.250%, 11/16/16 (d)		980,632		979,161
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—0.3%
DineEquity, Inc. 4.273%, 10/19/17 (d)		429,552		424,481
Dunkin’ Brands Group, Inc. 4.000%, 11/23/17 (d)		1,929,986		1,904,046
Wendy’s/Arby’s Restaurants LLC 5.000%, 05/24/17 (d)		500,627		501,098
				2,829,625
Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders—0.4%
AES Corp. (The) 4.250%, 06/01/18 (d)		1,434,162		1,432,105
Calpine Corp. 4.500%, 04/02/18 (d)		1,220,775		1,199,576
NRG Energy, Inc. 4.000%, 07/02/18 (d)		920,375		919,229
				3,550,910
Industrial Conglomerates—0.0%
Aquilex Holdings LLC 7.000%, 04/01/16 (d)		219,146		195,588
Insurance—0.4%
Alliant Holdings I, Inc. 3.579%, 08/21/14 (d)		232,993		227,023
6.750%, 08/21/14 (d)		974,457		973,239
AmWINS Group Inc. 4.737%, 06/08/13 (d)		728,181		709,976
CNO Financial Group, Inc. 5.000%, 09/30/16 (d)		340,279		340,279

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Loan Participation—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Insurance—(Continued)
HUB International Holdings, Inc. 6.750%, 06/13/14 (d)		1,045,925	$	1,042,568
USI Holdings Corp. 2.800%, 05/05/14 (d)		544,840		518,960
7.000%, 05/05/14 (d)		249,262		246,977
				4,059,022
IT Services—0.1%
First Data Corp. 3.044%, 09/24/14 (d)		39,687		36,116
4.294%, 03/23/18 (d)		372,933		313,366
TASC, Inc. 4.500%, 12/18/15 (d)		734,996		733,768
				1,083,250
Machinery—0.1%
Hudson Products Holdings Inc. 5.000%, 08/24/15 (d)		559,308		490,793
Scotsman Industries, Inc. 5.754%, 04/29/16 (d)		479,046		474,256
Terex Corp. 5.500%, 04/28/17 (d)		423,938		427,117
				1,392,166
Media—0.7%
Cengage Learning Acquisitions, Inc. 2.550%, 07/03/14 (d)		742,248		634,207
Charter Communications Operating LLC 7.250%, 03/06/14 (d)		7,505		7,511
3.830%, 09/06/16 (d)		1,326,316		1,299,577
Interactive Data Corp. 3.250%, 02/12/18 (d)		1,224,546		1,209,460
Kasima LLC 5.000%, 03/31/17 (d)		843,625		839,407
Mediacom Broadband LLC 4.500%, 10/23/17 (d)		985,000		960,380
Wideopenwest Finance LLC 6.500%, 06/27/14 (d)		1,751,429		1,679,396
				6,629,938
Metals & Mining—0.3%
American Rock Salt Holdings LLC 5.500%, 04/25/17 (d)		721,375		714,612
Novelis, Inc. 3.750%, 03/10/17 (d)		816,750		805,691
Metals & Mining—(Continued)
SunCoke Energy, Inc. 3.000%, 07/26/18 (d)		374,063	$	369,387
Walter Energy, Inc. 4.000%, 04/02/18 (d)		833,227		827,369
				2,717,059
Multiline Retail—0.1%
Savers, Inc. 4.250%, 03/03/17 (d)		980,921		966,614
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—0.3%
Glenn Pool Oil & Gas Trust 4.500%, 05/02/16 (d)		2,387,250		2,381,281
Personal Products—0.1%
Revlon Consumer Products Corp. 4.753%, 11/17/17 (d)		785,936		778,918
Pharmaceuticals—0.2%
Axcan Pharma, Inc. 5.500%, 02/11/17 (d)		1,658,250		1,591,920
Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings, Inc. 4.000%, 06/18/18 (d)		751,286		752,815
				2,344,735
Professional Services—0.1%
Scitor Corp. 5.000%, 02/15/17 (d)		495,000		475,200
Real Estate Management & Development—0.0%
Fidelity National Information Solutions, Inc. 3.250%, 07/18/16 (d)		432,857		433,262
Road & Rail—0.1%
Swift Transportation Co., Inc. 6.000%, 12/21/16 (d)		589,451		590,311
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—0.2%
Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. 4.520%, 12/01/16 (d)		993,502		953,017
Microsemi Corp. 4.500%, 02/02/18 (d)		882,787		883,008
				1,836,025
Software—0.2%
Cinedigm Digital Funding I LLC 3.500%, 04/29/16 (d)		528,562		515,348

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

25

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Loan Participation—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Software—(Continued)
Nuance Communications, Inc. 3.000%, 03/31/16 (d)		737,029	$	733,897
Telcordia Technologies 6.750%, 04/29/16 (d)		272,366		272,366
Verint Systems, Inc. 4.500%, 10/27/17 (d)		572,125		567,834
				2,089,445
Specialty Retail—0.1%
Pilot Travel Centers LLC 4.250%, 03/30/18 (d)		679,958		680,669
Transportation—0.1%
Louis No.1 plc 6.060%, 11/04/13 (d)		316,996		293,816
5.430%, 08/31/16 (d)		809,650		733,745
				1,027,561
Transportation Infrastructure—0.1%
Ozburn-Hessey Holding Co. LLC 6.250%, 04/08/16 (d)		663,791		586,629
Wireless Telecommunication Services—0.1%
MetroPCS Communications, Inc. 4.063%, 03/16/18 (d)		992,494		966,689
Total Loan Participation (Cost $110,523,134)				109,482,301
U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—8.7%
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed—4.4%
Fannie Mae 15 Yr. Pool 4.000%, 07/01/18		434,024		461,816
5.000%, 02/01/20		209,711		227,785
5.000%, 10/01/20		1,119,508		1,213,595
5.000%, 12/01/21		114,642		123,806
5.000%, 02/01/22		52,877		56,988
5.000%, 06/01/22		90,320		97,342
5.000%, 09/01/22		944,509		1,017,943
5.000%, 07/01/23		985,246		1,060,616
Fannie Mae 20 Yr. Pool 5.500%, 03/01/25		262,140		287,626
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool 7.000%, 09/01/29		438		512
7.500%, 01/01/30		1,397		1,648
7.500%, 10/01/30		134		160
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed—(Continued)
6.500%, 07/01/31		423	$	483
6.500%, 10/01/31		1,219		1,387
6.000%, 12/01/31		2,699		3,009
6.500%, 02/01/32		1,694		1,928
6.000%, 03/01/32		1,734		1,932
4.500%, 03/01/35		223,189		238,040
4.500%, 07/01/35		540,806		576,792
6.500%, 12/01/36		6,660		7,481
6.500%, 03/01/37		138,902		155,510
6.000%, 07/01/37		244,448		269,475
6.500%, 10/01/37		224,154		250,955
6.000%, 07/01/38		1,886,011		2,078,510
5.000%, 06/01/40		826,016		893,417
5.000%, 07/01/40		806,861		872,699
3.500%, 11/01/40		5,690,788		5,859,561
4.500%, 05/01/41		716,226		762,991
4.500%, 11/01/41		1,297,027		1,381,713
Fannie Mae Interest Strip 6.000%, 01/01/32 (h)		34,626		5,791
6.000%, 04/01/32 (h)		24,058		3,951
5.500%, 01/01/33 (h)		143,570		20,238
6.000%, 03/01/33 (h)		27,167		3,867
Fannie Mae Pool 0.000%, 12/01/41		1,725,000		1,814,797
4.500%, 12/01/41		200,000		213,058
0.000%, 01/01/42		1,100,000		1,155,859
4.000%, 01/01/42		225,000		236,713
Fannie Mae REMICS 7.500%, 01/25/42		15,355		18,457
Freddie Mac 15 Yr. Gold Pool 5.500%, 10/01/16		3,670		3,976
6.000%, 06/01/17		37,056		39,762
4.500%, 11/01/18		198,124		213,258
5.000%, 12/01/21		340,387		366,427
Freddie Mac 30 Yr. Gold Pool 5.000%, 05/01/34		571,903		615,442
5.000%, 06/01/35		237,557		255,642
6.000%, 06/01/35		99,611		110,011
6.000%, 12/01/36		144,402		159,118
5.000%, 05/01/37		1,438,612		1,548,581
5.000%, 09/01/38		77,017		82,856
5.000%, 10/01/38		710,237		764,085
5.000%, 11/01/39		3,431,412		3,711,897
5.000%, 12/01/39		571,530		625,756
3.500%, 10/01/40		1,393,129		1,432,051

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

26

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed—(Continued)
Freddie Mac REMICS 3.500%, 01/25/29 (h)		957,865	$	76,981
5.000%, 08/15/35		175,741		180,341
Freddie Mac Strips 0.000%, 06/15/31 (e)(i)		14,274		13,289
6.000%, 12/01/31 (h)		89,865		16,093
Ginnie Mae I 15 Yr. Pool 6.000%, 05/15/17		3,542		3,876
6.000%, 06/15/17		3,682		4,035
5.000%, 10/15/18		279,648		304,973
5.500%, 08/15/19		88,314		96,532
6.000%, 08/15/19		27,097		29,349
5.500%, 10/15/19		341,659		372,600
Ginnie Mae I 30 Yr. Pool 7.000%, 05/15/23		4,759		5,496
6.000%, 02/15/24		3,226		3,659
6.000%, 11/15/28		2,787		3,179
6.500%, 03/15/29		5,707		6,617
7.000%, 03/15/31		844		992
6.500%, 02/15/32		3,436		3,984
6.500%, 03/15/32		3,887		4,507
6.500%, 11/15/32		7,943		9,211
6.000%, 02/15/33		5,840		6,647
6.000%, 03/15/33		21,696		24,695
6.000%, 06/15/33		23,130		26,369
6.000%, 07/15/33		21,121		24,044
4.500%, 09/15/33		336,578		369,363
6.000%, 09/15/33		27,695		31,530
6.000%, 10/15/33		11,572		13,172
5.500%, 01/15/34		212,068		239,306
5.500%, 04/15/34		91,975		103,846
4.500%, 05/15/34		385,075		422,944
5.500%, 07/15/34		446,272		502,169
6.000%, 08/15/34		80,024		91,085
5.500%, 10/15/34		330,045		372,435
4.500%, 12/15/34		267,619		293,352
4.500%, 04/15/35		823,924		902,635
5.000%, 04/15/35		27,093		30,222
5.500%, 06/15/35		159,421		179,897
4.500%, 09/15/35		880,808		964,952
4.500%, 10/15/35		383,937		420,615
5.500%, 11/15/35		155,313		175,018
5.750%, 10/15/38		361,902		406,574
4.500%, 08/15/41		1,687,965		1,841,833
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed—(Continued)
Ginnie Mae II 30 Yr. Pool 6.000%, 05/20/32		43,400	$	49,294
6.000%, 11/20/33		50,608		57,481
5.500%, 03/20/34		30,293		34,200
5.000%, 08/20/34		305,227		339,775
4.500%, 09/20/41		1,656,839		1,811,080
				42,177,560
Federal Agencies—0.5%
Government National Mortgage Association 4.500%, 09/20/39		2,000,000		2,243,390
1.752%, 10/16/43 (d)(h)		9,236,215		738,459
1.282%, 03/16/51 (d)(h)		12,628,813		672,049
1.573%, 04/16/51 (d)(h)		5,805,331		387,874
1.474%, 10/16/52 (d)(h)		6,439,296		501,608
				4,543,380
U.S. Treasury—3.8%
U.S. Treasury Bonds 6.250%, 08/15/23 (c)		87,000		124,532
5.375%, 02/15/31 (c)		1,750,000		2,494,571
4.500%, 02/15/36		1,610,000		2,107,088
5.000%, 05/15/37		289,000		406,677
4.375%, 02/15/38		1,727,000		2,232,958
4.500%, 05/15/38		4,704,000		6,199,726
4.250%, 05/15/39		3,110,000		3,956,990
4.500%, 08/15/39		8,590,000		11,362,964
4.375%, 11/15/39		455,000		590,789
U.S. Treasury Notes 3.125%, 05/15/19 (c)		6,700,000		7,513,420
				36,989,715
Total U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies (Cost $74,818,391)				83,710,655
Municipals—6.0%
Brazos River Harbor, TX Navigation District Revenue Bonds Dow Chemical Co. Project Series A 5.950%, 05/15/11		3,360,000		3,450,922
Brunswick & Glynn County GA, Development Authority Revenue Georgia-Pacific Corp. Project 5.550%, 03/01/26		800,000		800,008

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

27

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Municipals—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Butler AL, Industrial Development Board Solid Waste Disposal Revenue Georgia-Pacific Corp. Project 5.750%, 09/01/28		625,000	$	629,375
California State University Revenue Systemwide Series A 5.000%, 11/01/39		1,502,000		1,557,048
Charleston SC, Waterworks & Sewer Revenue Capital Improvement 5.000%, 01/01/35		350,000		389,333
5.000%, 01/01/41		1,975,000		2,185,732
Charlotte Special Facilities Revenue Refunding Charlotte/Douglas International Airport 5.600%, 07/01/27		1,000,000		867,190
Connecticut State Health & Educational, Facility Authority Revenue, Yale University Series A-2 5.000%, 07/01/40		2,000,000		2,183,700
Series Z-1 5.000%, 07/01/42		1,451,000		1,555,008
Cook County IL, Revenue Navistar International-Recovery Zone Facility 6.500%, 10/15/40		1,275,000		1,326,688
Hampton Roads Sanitation District VA, Wastewater Revenue 5.000%, 04/01/38		550,000		591,063
Harris County, TX Metropolitan Transit Authority, Sales & Use Tax Series A 5.000%, 11/01/41		1,200,000		1,304,748
Houston TX, Higher Education Finance Corp. Revenue Rice University Project Series A 5.000%, 05/15/40		1,000,000		1,113,240
Series B
4.500%, 11/15/37		1,700,000		1,743,945
Indianapolis Airport Authority Federal Express Corp. Project 5.100%, 01/15/17		660,000		737,293
Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities Community Development Authority Revenue Westlake Chemical Corp. Projects 6.750%, 11/01/32		1,550,000	$	1,642,101
Massachusetts State Development Finance Agency Revenue Board Institute, Inc. Series A 5.250%, 04/01/37		1,350,000		1,427,841
5.375%, 04/01/41		400,000		422,164
Massachusetts State Development Finance Agency Revenue Harvard University Series B-1 5.000%, 10/15/40		800,000		899,624
Massachusetts State Health & Educational Facilities Authority Revenue Harvard University Series A 5.500%, 11/15/36		4,300,000		4,933,261
Massachusetts State Health & Educational Facilities Authority Revenue Massachusetts Institute of Technology Series K 5.500%, 07/01/32		950,000		1,271,356
Series O
6.000%, 07/01/36		675,000		787,104
Missouri State Health & Educational Facilities Authority Revenue Washington University Series A 5.000%, 11/15/39		1,900,000		2,090,190
New Hampshire Health & Educational Facilities Authority Revenue, Wentworth Douglas Hospital Series A 6.500%, 01/01/41		600,000		655,890
New Jersey Economic Development Authority Special Facilities Revenue, Continental Airlines, Inc. Project 6.250%, 09/15/29		2,718,000		2,632,981
7.000%, 11/15/30		117,000		117,018

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

28

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Municipals—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
New Jersey State Transportation Trust Fund Authority Transportation Systems Series A 5.500%, 06/15/41		2,000,000	$	2,174,920
New York City Transitional Finance Authority Revenue Future Tax Secured Series C 5.000%, 11/01/33		300,000		327,930
New York State Dormitory Authority Revenues Non State Supported Debt, Columbia University 5.000%, 07/01/38		2,500,000		2,735,725
5.000%, 10/01/41		2,040,000		2,279,680
New York State Dormitory Authority Revenues Non State Supported Debt, Cornell University Series A 5.000%, 07/01/35		175,000		192,514
5.000%, 07/01/40		1,200,000		1,319,172
Port of Corpus Christi Authority TX Celanese Project Series B 6.700%, 11/01/30		1,500,000		1,510,035
Selma AL, Industrial Development Board Revenue Gulf Opportunity Zone, International Paper Co. Projects, Series A 6.250%, 11/01/33		800,000		855,472
St. John Baptist Parish LA, Revenue Bond Marathon Oil Corp., Series A 5.125%, 06/01/37		1,710,000		1,710,308
State of Ohio, Solid Waste Disposal Revenue USG Corp. Project 5.650%, 03/01/33		1,335,000		966,193
Sweetwater County WY, Solid Waste Disposal Revenue FMC Corp. Project 5.600%, 12/01/35		1,670,000		1,674,542
Texas A&M University Permit University Fund Series A 5.000%, 07/01/30		530,000		623,020
Texas Brazos Harbor Industrial Development Corp., Environmental Facilities Revenue Dow Chemical Project. 5.900%, 05/01/38		1,505,000	$	1,552,844
Texas Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority Waste Management Series A 5.200%, 05/01/28		945,000		956,085
Washington State General Obligation Unlimited, Motor Vehicle Fuel Taxable Series B-1 5.000%, 08/01/39		1,050,000		1,140,626
Wisconsin State General Reserve 5.750%, 05/01/33		134,000		153,226
Yavapai County AZ, Industrial Development Authority Solid Waste Disposal Revenue Waste Management, Inc. Project Series A-1 4.900%, 03/01/28		300,000		297,339
Total Municipals (Cost $53,222,971)				57,784,454
Convertible Bonds—4.9%
Biotechnology—0.2%
Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2.500%, 11/01/17 (c)		800,000		1,202,000
PDL BioPharma, Inc. 3.750%, 05/01/15		1,050,000		1,056,562
				2,258,562
Communications Equipment—0.1%
MasTec, Inc. 4.000%, 06/15/14		495,000		647,213
Electrical Equipment—0.2%
General Cable Corp. 4.500%, 11/15/29 (c)(j)		2,420,000		2,302,025
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—0.2%
Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. 2.250%, 05/15/41(144A)		2,545,000		1,794,225

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

29

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Convertible Bonds—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Energy Equipment & Services—0.1%
Exterran Holdings, Inc. 4.250%, 06/15/14 (c)		1,365,000	$	1,218,263
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—0.6%
Hologic, Inc. 2.000%, 12/15/37 (c)(j)		3,000,000		3,296,250
NuVasive, Inc. 2.750%, 07/01/17		3,680,000		2,700,200
				5,996,450
Health Care Providers & Services—0.1%
Omnicare, Inc. 3.250%, 12/15/35		568,000		523,980
Internet Software & Services—0.3%
WebMD Health Corp. 2.250%, 03/31/16 (144A)(c)		800,000		772,000
2.500%, 01/31/18 (144A)		1,900,000		1,778,875
				2,550,875
Machinery—0.4%
Greenbrier Cos., Inc. 3.500%, 04/01/18 (144A)		1,190,000		1,158,762
Navistar International Corp. 3.000%, 10/15/14		2,250,000		2,435,625
				3,594,387
Marine—0.1%
Horizon Lines, Inc. 6.000%, 04/15/17		607,636		470,918
Horizon Lines, Inc., Senior Notes 6.000%, 04/15/17 (b)		337,575		243,054
				713,972
Metals & Mining—0.2%
Vedanta Resources Jersey Co. 5.500%, 07/13/16		1,900,000		1,558,000
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—0.6%
Alpha Appalachia Holdings, Inc. 3.250%, 08/01/15		3,264,000		3,031,440
Chesapeake Energy Corp. 2.500%, 05/15/37 (c)		990,000		887,288
2.250%, 12/15/38		1,250,000		1,037,500
James River Coal Co. 3.125%, 03/15/18 (144A)		2,035,000		1,205,737
				6,161,965
Paper & Forest Products—0.0%
Sino-Forest Corp. 5.000%, 08/01/13		500,000	$	137,500
4.250%, 12/15/16 (144A)		1,246,000		336,420
				473,920
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—1.2%
Intel Corp. 2.950%, 12/15/35		4,130,000		4,321,012
3.250%, 08/01/39		904,000		1,136,780
Lam Research Corp. 1.250%, 05/15/18 (144A) (c)		2,199,000		2,072,558
Novellus Systems, Inc. 2.625%, 05/15/41 (144A)		3,110,000		3,739,775
				11,270,125
Software—0.5%
Concur Technologies, Inc. 2.500%, 04/15/15 (144A)		1,800,000		2,162,250
Mentor Graphics Corp. 4.000%, 04/01/31 (144A)		2,213,000		2,248,961
				4,411,211
Wireless Telecommunication Services—0.1%
InterDigital, Inc. 2.500%, 03/15/16 (144A)		880,000		924,000
Total Convertible Bonds (Cost $46,378,362)				46,399,173
Asset-Backed Securities—3.7%
Asset-Backed - Automobiles—0.2%
AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust Series 2010-4 Class D 4.200%, 11/08/16		400,000		401,422
Series 2011-3 Class D
4.040%, 07/10/17		300,000		298,428
Ford Auto Securitization Trust
Series 2011-R1A Class A1 1.793%, 09/15/13 (144A)(CAD)		120,519		118,232
Series 2011-R1A Class A2 2.431%, 11/15/14 (144A)(CAD)		450,000		445,066
Prestige Auto Receivables Trust Series 2011-1A Class C 3.900%, 07/16/18 (144A)		577,000		586,831
				1,849,979

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

30

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Asset-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Asset-Backed - Home Equity—1.9%
Accredited Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2006-2 Class A3 0.444%, 09/25/36 (d)		1,687,056	$	1,336,316
ACE Securities Corp. Series 2003-MH1 Class M2 6.500%, 08/15/30 (144A)(d)		1,335,718		1,376,522
Series 2004-HE4 Class M1
1.194%, 12/25/34 (d)		578,893		404,359
Series 2006-FM2 Class A2A
0.344%, 08/25/36 (d)		179,632		169,843
Aegis Asset Backed Securities Trust Series 2005-5 Class 1A3 0.564%, 12/25/35 (d)		1,331,309		1,150,588
Ameriquest Mortgage Securities, Inc. Series 2003-AR3 Class M5 3.800%, 10/25/33 (d)		25,000		7,268
Asset Backed Securities Corp. Series 2005-HE3 Class M2 0.734%, 04/25/35 (d)		387,082		376,774
Bayview Financial Acquisition Trust Series 2005-C Class M1 0.794%, 06/28/44 (d)		418,342		221,029
Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities Trust Series 2003-SD1 Class M1 1.144%, 12/25/33 (d)		320,284		257,950
Series 2004-BO1 Class M3 1.344%, 10/25/34 (d)		835,000		564,277
Series 2006-4 Class A1
0.424%, 10/25/36 (d)		381,494		361,337
Carrington Mortgage Loan Trust
Series 2005-NC1 Class M1
0.784%, 02/25/35 (d)		329,429		322,087
Series 2005-NC4 Class A3
0.694%, 09/25/35 (d)		139,973		130,620
Series 2006-FRE1 Class A2
0.404%, 07/25/36 (d)		475,406		438,209
Series 2007-FRE1 Class A1
0.414%, 02/25/37 (d)		127,012		123,378
Series 2007-HE1 Class A1
0.394%, 06/25/37 (d)		182,819		163,946
Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Inc.
Series 2005-HE2 Class M1 1.044%, 05/25/35 (144A)(d)		429,900		326,910
Asset-Backed - Home Equity—(Continued)
Series 2007-AHL3 Class A3A
0.354%, 07/25/45 (d)		452,493	$	310,397
Countrywide Asset-Backed Certificates
Series 2005-13 Class 3AV3
0.544%, 04/25/36 (d)		492,525		422,030
Series 2005-3 Class MV1
0.714%, 08/25/35 (d)		222,880		220,273
Series 2005-4 Class AF3
4.456%, 10/25/35 (d)		509,918		493,077
Series 2006-15 Class A2
5.683%, 10/25/46 (d)		579,319		568,714
Series 2006-3 Class 2A2
0.474%, 06/25/36 (d)		649,644		513,303
Series 2006-5 Class 2A2
0.474%, 08/25/36 (d)		455,212		369,986
Series 2007-1 Class 2A1
0.344%, 07/25/37 (d)		177,261		168,570
Series 2007-QH1 Class A1
0.494%, 02/25/37 (144A)(d)		427,088		259,566
Credit-Based Asset Servicing and Securitization LLC Series 2006-MH1 Class M1
6.250%, 10/25/36 (144A)		375,000		361,900
Series 2007-CB4 Class A1A
0.384%, 04/25/37 (d)		381,570		253,990
Home Equity Asset Trust Series 2005-6 Class 1A2 0.574%, 12/25/35 (d)		381,571		356,254
Irwin Home Equity Corp. Series 2005-C Class 2M2 0.994%, 04/25/30 (d)		450,000		357,176
JPMorgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp. Series 2005-OPT2 Class A3 0.534%, 12/25/35 (d)		139,187		128,071
MASTER Asset Backed Securities Trust Series 2003-OPT1 Class MV5 5.544%, 12/25/32 (d)		13,521		1,712
Series 2005-HE1 Class M1 0.724%, 05/25/35 (d)		104,430		101,767
Morgan Stanley Capital, Inc. Series 2007-HE3 Class A2A 0.354%, 12/25/36 (d)		181,918		94,917

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

31

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Asset-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Asset-Backed - Home Equity—(Continued)
Morgan Stanley Home Equity Loan Trust Series 2007-2 Class A1 0.394%, 04/25/37 (d)		312,538	$	264,338
Novastar Home Equity Loan Series 2005-3 Class A2D 0.664%, 01/25/36 (d)		1,000,000		710,697
Option One Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2005-4 Class A3 0.554%, 11/25/35 (d)		784,156		716,872
Series 2007-HL1 Class 2A1 0.414%, 02/25/38 (d)		170,308		166,701
Origen Manufactured Housing Series 2004-A Class M1 5.910%, 01/15/35 (d)		625,087		678,961
Series 2005-A Class M1 5.460%, 06/15/36 (d)		372,492		379,573
Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc. Series 2005-EFC2 Class M2 0.764%, 07/25/35 (d)		525,000		463,574
Series 2006-RZ3 Class A2 0.454%, 08/25/36 (d)		384,517		328,959
Residential Asset Securities Corp. Series 2004-KS11 Class AI3 0.764%, 12/25/34 (d)		402,383		378,886
Series 2005-KS12 Class A2 0.544%, 01/25/36 (d)		43,770		41,543
Series 2005-KS7 Class M1 0.734%, 08/25/35 (d)		517,000		491,799
Soundview Home Equity Loan Trust Series 2007-NS1 Class A1 0.414%, 01/25/37 (d)		118,899		115,026
Structured Asset Securities Corp. Series 2005-2XS Class 1A2A 4.510%, 02/25/35		12,933		12,906
Series 2007-BC2 Class A3 0.424%, 03/25/37 (d)		300,000		216,143
Wells Fargo Home Equity Trust Series 2005-3 Class AI1B 0.644%, 11/25/35 (d)		246,638		243,508
Series 2005-3 Class M1 0.704%, 11/25/35 (d)		311,000		258,819
				18,181,421
Asset-Backed - Other—1.6%
Citicorp Residential Mortgage Securities, Inc. Series 2006-1 Class A4 5.939%, 07/25/36		1,560,000	$	1,481,352
Series 2006-2 Class A4
5.775%, 09/25/36		1,480,290		1,438,571
Series 2007-1 Class A4
5.892%, 03/25/37		1,325,000		1,213,016
Conseco Finance Securitizations Corp. Series 2001-3 Class A4 6.910%, 05/01/33		2,789		2,975
Series 2001-4 Class A4 7.360%, 08/01/32		1,832		1,941
Series 2002-1 Class A
6.681%, 12/01/33 (d)		63,245		66,857
Conseco Financial Corp. Series 1999-5 Class A5 7.860%, 03/01/30 (d)		124,549		102,053
Dominos Pizza Master Issuer LLC Series 2007-1 Class A2 5.261%, 04/25/37 (144A)		2,800,000		2,814,289
Series 2007-1 Class M1
7.629%, 04/25/37 (144A)		1,602,000		1,616,216
Ellington Loan Acquisition Trust Series 2007-1 Class A2A2 1.094%, 05/27/37 (144A)(d)		268,360		243,697
FBR Securitization Trust Series 2005-4 Class AV24 0.994%, 10/25/35 (d)		170,499		90,916
First Franklin Mortgage Loan Asset Backed Certificates Series 2004-FF10 Class A3 0.834%, 09/25/34 (d)		223,230		210,698
Series 2005-FF5 Class M1
0.744%, 03/25/35 (d)		252,640		236,575
Series 2005-FFH3 Class M1
0.804%, 09/25/35 (d)		650,000		513,103
Fremont Home Loan Trust Series 2006-2 Class 2A2 0.404%, 02/25/36 (d)		15,516		15,404
Greenpoint Manufactured Housing Series 2000-3 Class IA 8.450%, 06/20/31 (d)		155,343		133,184

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

32

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Asset-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Asset-Backed - Other—(Continued)
GSAMP Trust Series 2005-HE2 Class M1 0.939%, 03/25/35 (d)		188,637	$	178,130
Series 2006-HE5 Class A2B
0.394%, 08/25/36 (d)		243,895		232,183
Series 2006-HE8 Class A2B
0.424%, 01/25/37 (d)		192,738		172,126
Indymac Residential Asset Backed Trust Series 2007-A Class 2A1 0.424%, 04/25/47 (d)		7,175		7,134
Leaf II Receivables Funding LLC Series 2010-3 Class B 4.900%, 02/20/22 (144A)		600,000		596,160
Lehman ABS Manufactured Housing Contract Trust Series 2001-B Class A5 5.873%, 04/15/40		328,283		349,171
Lehman XS Trust Series 2005-7N Class 1A2A 0.644%, 12/25/35 (d)		662,481		192,451
Madison Avenue Manufactured Housing Contract Trust Series 2002-A Class B1 3.544%, 03/25/32 (d)		250,000		215,112
Series 2002-A Class M2
2.544%, 03/25/32 (d)		1,500,000		1,327,138
Mid-State Trust Series 10 Class B 7.540%, 02/15/36		50,732		46,821
Series 2010-1 Class B
7.000%, 12/15/45 (144A)		613,435		643,874
Series 2010-1 Class M
5.250%, 12/15/45 (144A)		518,460		544,542
Specialty Underwriting & Residential Finance Series 2005-AB3 Class A2B 0.544%, 09/25/36 (d)		109,287		104,708
Structured Asset Investment Loan Trust Series 2005-4 Class M1 0.694%, 05/25/35 (d)		410,026		391,676
TAL Advantage LLC Series 2011-2A Class A 4.310%, 05/20/26 (144A)		565,000		552,290
Asset-Backed - Other—(Continued)
TIAA Commercial Real Estate Securitization Series 2002-1A Class IV 6.840%, 05/22/37 (144A)		100,000	$	71,250
				15,805,613
Total Asset-Backed Securities (Cost $35,823,915)				35,837,013
Preferred Stocks—1.5%
Diversified Financial Services—1.2%
Capital One Capital VI 8.875% (c)		2,002,000		2,087,868
Citigroup Capital XIII 7.875% (d)		167,325		4,360,489
GMAC Capital Trust I Series 2 8.125% (d)		26,000		505,999
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 7.900% (c)(d)		4,343,000		4,639,549
				11,593,905
Diversified Telecommunication Services—0.3%
Qwest Corp. 7.375% (c)		109,000		2,895,040
Total Preferred Stocks (Cost $13,204,824)				14,488,945
Convertible Preferred Stocks—0.8%
Auto Components—0.3%
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (The) 5.875%, 04/01/14		58,180		2,830,457
Commercial Banks—0.3%
Wells Fargo & Co. Series L 7.500%, 12/31/49		3,015		3,177,810
Real Estate Management & Development—0.2%
Forest City Enterprises, Inc. Series A 7.000%, 03/09/13		33,370		1,541,277
Total Convertible Preferred Stocks (Cost $7,203,327)				7,549,544

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

33

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—0.1%

Security Description	Shares/Par Amount		Value
Airlines—0.0%
Delta Air Lines, Inc.*		2,000	$	16,180
United Continental Holdings, Inc.* (c)		544		10,265
				26,445
Auto Components—0.0%
Lear Corp. (c)		3,422		136,196
Building Products—0.0%
Owens Corning, Inc.* (c)		2,967		85,212
Capital Markets—0.1%
Legg Mason, Inc. (c)		10,264		246,849
Commercial Services & Supplies—0.0%
Comdisco Holding Co., Inc. (c)		83		490
Diversified Financial Services—0.0%
BTA Bank JSC (GDR)(144A)*(b)		1,133		1,144
Leucadia National Corp. (c)		36		819
				1,963
Diversified Telecommunication Services—0.0%
Cincinnati Bell, Inc.* (c)		35		106
Food Products—0.0%
Smithfield Foods, Inc.* (c)		2,165		52,566
Insurance—0.0%
CNO Financial Group, Inc.* (c)		5,666		35,753
Marine—0.0%
Horizon Lines, Inc.* (c)		1,404		6,107
Media—0.0%
Knology, Inc.* (c)		99		1,406
Paper & Forest Products—0.0%
Ainsworth Lumber Co., Ltd.*		54,081		52,121
Total Common Stocks (Cost $980,294)				645,214
Warrants—0.0%
Containers & Packaging—0.0%
Smurfit Kappa Group plc, expires 10/01/13* (144A)(b)		42		1,312
Life Sciences Tools & Services—0.0%
Mediq, Inc., expires 06/1/09* (b)		110		0
Marine—0.0%
Horizon Lines, Inc., expires 09/27/36* (b)		133,679	$	21,870
Sovereign—0.0%
Republic of Venezuela, expires 04/15/20* (d)		1,700		43,988
Total Warrants (Cost $72,977)				67,170
Short-Term Investments—9.0%
Mutual Funds—7.0%
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (k)		67,150,261		67,150,261
Repurchase Agreement—2.0%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $19,050,021 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $19,410,000 Federal Home Loan Banks at 0.255% due 07/20/12 with a value of $19,434,263.	$	19,050,000		19,050,000
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $86,200,261)				86,200,261
Total Investments—105.8% (Cost $987,469,919#)				1,012,553,226
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(5.8)%				(55,777,293	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	956,775,933

† Par amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $988,631,693. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and (depreciation) of investments were $50,866,026 and $(26,944,493), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $23,921,533 for federal income tax purpose.

(a) Security is in default and/or issuer is in bankruptcy.

(b) Security was valued in good faith under procedures approved by the Board of Trustees.

(c) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities loaned was $65,908,211 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $67,150,261. The cash collateral is invested in a money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

34

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

(d) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2011. Maturity date shown for callable securities reflects the earliest possible call date.

(e) Zero coupon bond—Interest rate represents current yield to maturity.

(f) Payment-in-kind security for which part of the income earned may be paid as additional principal.

(g) Security is a “step-up” bond where coupon increases or steps up at a predetermined date. Rates shown are current coupon and next coupon rate when security steps up.

(h) Interest only security.

(i) Principal only security.

(j) Security is a “step-down” bond where the coupon decreases or steps down at a predetermined date. Rates shown are current coupon and next coupon rate when a security steps down.

(k) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities lending transactions.

(144A)— Securities exempt from registration under Rule 144A of the Securities Act of 1933. These securities may be resold in transactions exempt from registration, normally to qualified institutional buyers. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of 144A securities was $252,776,692, which is 26.4% of net assets.

(GDR)— A Global Depositary Receipt is a negotiable certificate issued by one country’s bank against a certain number of shares of a company’s stock held in its custody but traded on the stock exchange of another country.

(IO)— Interest Only

(AUD)— Australian Dollar

(BRL)— Brazilian Real

(CAD)— Canadian Dollar

(CNY)— Chinese Yuan Renminbi

(DKK)— Danish Krone

(EUR)— Euro

(IDR)— Indonesian Rupiah

(NOK)— Norwegian Krone

(SEK)— Swedish Krona

(SGD)— Singapore Dollar

(TRY)— New Turkish Lira

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

35

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Finanical Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities
Aerospace & Defense	$	—	$	660,000	$	—	$	660,000
Airlines		—		2,031,410		—		2,031,410
Auto Components		—		—		0		0
Beverages		—		1,626,433		—		1,626,433
Building Products		—		2,637,905		—		2,637,905
Capital Markets		—		19,343,723		—		19,343,723
Chemicals		—		4,509,421		—		4,509,421
Commercial Banks		—		23,752,134		—		23,752,134
Commercial Services & Supplies		—		2,344,688		—		2,344,688
Communications Equipment		—		2,977,665		—		2,977,665
Construction & Engineering		—		1,015,000		—		1,015,000
Construction Materials		—		963,000		—		963,000
Consumer Finance		—		2,925,430		—		2,925,430
Containers & Packaging		—		2,908,000		—		2,908,000
Distributors		—		1,890,915		—		1,890,915
Diversified Consumer Services		—		3,772,621		—		3,772,621
Diversified Financial Services		—		11,708,900		—		11,708,900
Diversified Telecommunication Services		—		11,388,598		—		11,388,598
Electric Utilities		—		7,372,640		—		7,372,640
Electrical Equipment		—		2,437,853		—		2,437,853
Energy Equipment & Services		—		7,431,845		—		7,431,845
Food & Staples Retailing		—		943,220		—		943,220
Food Products		—		2,415,580		—		2,415,580
Gas Utilities		—		3,315,978		—		3,315,978
Health Care Providers & Services		—		4,661,375		—		4,661,375
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure		—		1,516,413		0		1,516,413
Household Durables		—		1,478,232		—		1,478,232
Household Products		—		1,650,320		—		1,650,320
Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders		—		3,959,986		—		3,959,986
Insurance		—		25,603,962		—		25,603,962
Internet & Catalog Retail		—		4,283,824		—		4,283,824

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

36

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY—(Continued)

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Internet Software & Services	$	—	$	1,407,075	$	—	$	1,407,075
IT Services		—		2,632,133		—		2,632,133
Machinery		—		6,841,581		—		6,841,581
Media		—		646,873		—		646,873
Metals & Mining		—		4,891,276		0		4,891,276
Oil & Gas Exploration & Production		—		744,375		—		744,375
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels		—		34,335,984		—		34,335,984
Paper & Forest Products		—		2,239,548		—		2,239,548
Pharmaceuticals		—		1,914,775		—		1,914,775
Real Estate Investment Trusts		—		11,062,505		—		11,062,505
Real Estate Management & Development		—		2,577,243		—		2,577,243
Road & Rail		—		846,000		—		846,000
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment		—		177,817		—		177,817
Tobacco		—		2,230,825		—		2,230,825
Trading Companies & Distributors		—		2,105,415		—		2,105,415
Wireless Telecommunication Services		—		6,160,074		—		6,160,074
Total Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities		—		244,340,570		0		244,340,570
Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities
Airlines		—		1,285,200		—		1,285,200
Beverages		—		67,237		—		67,237
Building Products		—		532,500		—		532,500
Capital Markets		—		5,415,216		—		5,415,216
Chemicals		—		3,720,209		—		3,720,209
Commercial Banks		—		16,199,763		—		16,199,763
Commercial Services & Supplies		—		15,083,685		—		15,083,685
Computers & Peripherals		—		1,287,844		—		1,287,844
Construction & Engineering		—		2,667,000		—		2,667,000
Construction Materials		—		1,981,312		—		1,981,312
Consumer Finance		—		1,809,290		—		1,809,290
Containers & Packaging		—		3,307,967		—		3,307,967
Distributors		—		1,322,375		—		1,322,375
Diversified Financial Services		—		12,984,144		—		12,984,144
Diversified Telecommunication Services		—		6,216,258		—		6,216,258
Electric Utilities		—		7,274,307		—		7,274,307
Electrical Equipment		—		24,497		—		24,497
Energy Equipment & Services		—		8,301,654		—		8,301,654
Food Products		—		5,606,289		3,742		5,610,031
Gas Utilities		—		838,110		—		838,110
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure		—		5,698,320		—		5,698,320
Household Durables		—		3,510,458		—		3,510,458
Insurance		—		15,813,767		—		15,813,767
Machinery		—		1,868,313		—		1,868,313
Media		—		4,288,349		—		4,288,349
Metals & Mining		—		16,351,394		—		16,351,394
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels		—		9,694,258		—		9,694,258
Pharmaceuticals		—		1,103,219		—		1,103,219
Provincial		—		3,514,992		—		3,514,992
Real Estate Investment Trusts		—		2,119,958		—		2,119,958
Real Estate Management & Development		—		19,242		—		19,242
Road & Rail		—		1,465,284		—		1,465,284
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment		—		160,321		—		160,321

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

37

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY—(Continued)

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Sovereign	$	—	$	45,282,652	$	—	$	45,282,652
Trading Companies & Distributors		—		1,515,565		—		1,515,565
Wireless Telecommunication Services		—		1,326,875		—		1,326,875
Total Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities		—		209,657,824		3,742		209,661,566
Mortgage-Backed Securities
Collateralized Mortgage Obligations		—		86,800,099		15		86,800,114
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities		—		29,586,246		—		29,586,246
Total Mortgage-Backed Securities		—		116,386,345		15		116,386,360
Total Loan Participation*		—		109,482,301		—		109,482,301
Total U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies*		—		83,710,655		—		83,710,655
Municipals		—		57,784,454		—		57,784,454
Convertible Bonds
Biotechnology		—		2,258,562		—		2,258,562
Communications Equipment		—		647,213		—		647,213
Electrical Equipment		—		2,302,025		—		2,302,025
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components		—		1,794,225		—		1,794,225
Energy Equipment & Services		—		1,218,263		—		1,218,263
Health Care Equipment & Supplies		—		5,996,450		—		5,996,450
Health Care Providers & Services		—		523,980		—		523,980
Internet Software & Services		—		2,550,875		—		2,550,875
Machinery		—		3,594,387		—		3,594,387
Marine		—		470,918		243,054		713,972
Metals & Mining		—		1,558,000		—		1,558,000
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels		—		6,161,965		—		6,161,965
Paper & Forest Products		—		473,920		—		473,920
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment		—		11,270,125		—		11,270,125
Software		—		4,411,211		—		4,411,211
Wireless Telecommunication Services		—		924,000		—		924,000
Total Convertible Bonds*		—		46,156,119		243,054		46,399,173
Total Asset-Backed Securities*		—		35,837,013		—		35,837,013
Preferred Stocks
Diversified Financial Services		4,360,489		7,233,416		—		11,593,905
Diversified Telecommunication Services		—		2,895,040		—		2,895,040
Total Preferred Stocks		4,360,489		10,128,456		—		14,488,945
Total Convertible Preferred Stocks*		7,549,544		—		—		7,549,544
Common Stocks
Airlines		26,445		—		—		26,445
Auto Components		136,196		—		—		136,196
Building Products		85,212		—		—		85,212
Capital Markets		246,849		—		—		246,849
Commercial Services & Supplies		490		—		—		490
Diversified Financial Services		819		—		1,144		1,963
Diversified Telecommunication Services		106		—		—		106
Food Products		52,566		—		—		52,566
Insurance		35,753		—		—		35,753
Marine		6,107		—		—		6,107
Media		1,406		—		—		1,406
Paper & Forest Products		52,121		—		—		52,121
Total Common Stocks		644,070		—		1,144		645,214

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

38

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY—(Continued)

Description	Level 1			Level 2			Level 3		Total
Warrants
Containers & Packaging	$	—		$	—		$	1,312	$	1,312
Life Sciences Tools & Services		—			—			0		—
Marine		—			—			21,870		21,870
Sovereign		—			43,988			—		43,988
Total Warrants		—			43,988			23,182		67,170
Short-Term Investments
Mutual Funds		67,150,261			—			—		67,150,261
Repurchase Agreement		—			19,050,000			—		19,050,000
Total Short-Term Investments		67,150,261			19,050,000			—		86,200,261
Total Investments	$	79,704,364		$	932,577,725		$	271,137	$	1,012,553,226
Forward Contracts**
Forward Foreign Currency Contracts (Unrealized Appreciation)	$	—		$	127,799		$	—	$	127,799
Forward Foreign Currency Contracts (Unrealized Depreciation)		—			(64,642	)		—		(64,642	)
Total Forward Contracts	$	—		$	63,157		$	—	$	63,157
Future Contracts**
Futures Contracts (Unrealized Appreciation)	$	94,715		$	—		$	—	$	94,715
Futures Contracts (Unrealized Depreciation)		(781,009	)		—			—		(781,009	)
Total Future Contracts	$	(686,294	)	$	—		$	—	$	(686,294	)

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

** Derivative instruments such as forwards and futures contracts are valued based on the unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the instrument.

Following is a reconciliation of Level 3 assets for which significant unobservable inputs were used to determine fair value:

Investments in Securities	Balance as of December 31, 2010		Accrued Discounts/ Premiums		Realized Gain/ (Loss)		Change in Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)			Purchase		Sales			Transfers into Level 3		Balance as of December 31, 2011		Change in Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation) for Investments Held at December 31, 2011
Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities
Auto Components	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—		$	—	$	—		$	0	$	0	$	—
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure		—		4,391		—		(4,461	)		—		—			70		0		(4,461	)
Metals & Mining		—		—		0		(1,435	)		—		(451	)		1,886		0		(1,435	)
Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities
Food Product		—		—		—		(3,682	)		—		—			7,424		3,742		(3,682	)
Mortgage-Backed Secuties
Collateralized Mortgage Obligations		15		—		—		—			—		—			—		15		—
Loan Participation
Metals & Mining		275,697		—		71,022		(40,389	)		6,010		(312,340	)		—		—		—
Convertible Bond
Marine		—		3,994		—		57,470			181,590		—			—		243,054		57,470
Common Stocks
Diversified Financial Services		21,095		—		—		(19,951	)		—		—			—		1,144		(19,951	)
Metals & Mining		35,730		—		31,487		20,700			—		(87,917	)		—		—		—
Warrants
Media		1,919		—		—		(607	)		—		—			—		1,312		(607	)
Life Sciences Tools & Services		0		—		—		—			—		—			—		0		—
Marine		—		—		—		(41,738	)		63,608		—			—		21,870		(41,738	)
Total	$	334,456	$	8,385	$	102,509	$	(34,093	)	$	251,208	$	(400,708	)	$	9,380	$	271,137	$	(14,404	)

Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities in the amount of $7,424 were transferred into Level 3 due to a decline in market activity for significant observables which resulted in a lack of available market inputs to determine price.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

39

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)(b)	$	993,503,226
Repurchase Agreement		19,050,000
Cash (c)		1,265,588
Cash denominated in foreign currencies (d)		11,159,873
Receivable for investments sold		713,675
Receivable for shares sold		1,137,427
Dividends receivable		43,548
Interest receivable		11,177,011
Unrealized appreciation on forward currency exchange contracts		127,799
Total assets		1,038,178,147
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		13,079,208
Shares redeemed		258,473
Variation margin on futures contracts		227,700
Unrealized depreciation on forward currency exchange contracts		64,642
Collateral for securities loaned		67,150,261
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		462,852
Distribution and service fees - Class E		26,980
Administration fees		4,162
Custodian and accounting fees		28,214
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		74,655
Total liabilities		81,402,214
Net Assets	$	956,775,933
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	877,409,191
Accumulated net realized gain		4,633,063
Unrealized appreciation on investments, futures contracts and foreign currency transactions		24,125,451
Undistributed net investment income		50,608,228
Net Assets	$	956,775,933
Net Assets
Class A	$	743,180,174
Class E		213,595,759
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		67,845,857
Class E		19,608,795
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	10.95
Class E		10.89

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreement, was $968,419,919.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $65,908,211.

(c) Includes $1,182,260 of restricted cash pledged as collateral for open futures contracts.

(d) Identified cost of cash denominated in foreign currencies was $11,416,662.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	656,138
Interest (b)		55,267,414
Total investment income		55,923,552
Expenses
Management fees		5,164,825
Administration fees		46,457
Custodian and accounting fees		327,275
Distribution and service fees - Class E		283,118
Audit and tax services		54,078
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Shareholder reporting		88,312
Insurance		4,652
Miscellaneous		8,825
Total expenses		6,046,252
Net investment income		49,877,300
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments, Futures Contracts and Foreign Currency Transactions
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments		7,856,960
Futures contracts		(3,367,479	)
Foreign currency transactions		1,150,204
Net realized gain on investments, futures contracts and foreign currency transactions		5,639,685
Net change in unrealized depreciation from:
Investments		(22,901,902	)
Futures contracts		(1,988,165	)
Foreign currency transactions		(946,311	)
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments, futures contracts and foreign currency transactions		(25,836,378	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments, futures contracts and foreign currency transactions		(20,196,693	)
Net Increase in Net Assets from Operations	$	29,680,607

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $53,993.

(b) Includes net income on securities loaned of $136,600.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

40

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	49,877,300		$	39,511,315
Net realized gain on investments, futures contracts and foreign currency transactions		5,639,685			10,743,015
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments, futures contracts and foreign currency transactions		(25,836,378	)		25,014,675
Net increase in net assets resulting from operations		29,680,607			75,269,005
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(32,248,910	)		(27,476,998	)
Class E		(8,069,819	)		(4,533,979	)
From net realized capital gains
Class A		(4,299,826	)		—
Class E		(1,097,212	)		—
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(45,715,767	)		(32,010,977	)
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		178,867,804			188,236,086
Net Increase in Net Assets		162,832,644			231,494,114
Net assets at beginning of period		793,943,289			562,449,175
Net assets at end of period	$	956,775,933		$	793,943,289
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	50,608,228		$	40,169,192

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		16,713,083		$	184,819,400			14,775,929		$	159,371,127
Reinvestments		3,350,021			36,548,736			2,619,352			27,476,998
Redemptions		(9,421,608	)		(103,639,123	)		(6,882,059	)		(73,906,776	)
Net increase		10,641,496		$	117,729,013			10,513,222		$	112,941,349
Class E
Sales		10,176,628		$	111,942,735			8,877,274		$	95,732,727
Reinvestments		844,109			9,167,031			433,874			4,533,979
Redemptions		(5,456,181	)		(59,970,975	)		(2,320,301	)		(24,971,969	)
Net increase		5,564,556		$	61,138,791			6,990,847		$	75,294,737
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	178,867,804					$	188,236,086

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

41

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	11.15		$	10.47		$	8.37		$	10.02		$	9.46
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.62			0.64			0.68			0.64			0.51
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.22	)		0.60			1.94			(1.63	)		0.12
Total from investment operations		0.40			1.24			2.62			(0.99	)		0.63
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.53	)		(0.56	)		(0.52	)		(0.66	)		(0.07	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.07	)		0.00			0.00			0.00			0.00
Total distributions		(0.60	)		(0.56	)		(0.52	)		(0.66	)		(0.07	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.95		$	11.15		$	10.47		$	8.37		$	10.02
Total Return (%)		3.63			12.17			33.09			(10.74	)		6.65
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.64			0.67			0.66			0.67			0.76
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		5.61			5.94			7.25			6.77			5.28
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		29.7			33.4			31.7			45.4			44.5
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	743.2		$	638.0		$	488.9		$	317.1		$	327.7

	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	11.10		$	10.43		$	8.34		$	9.51
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.60			0.62			0.66			0.43
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.22	)		0.60			1.94			(1.60	)
Total from investment operations		0.38			1.22			2.60			(1.17	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.52	)		(0.55	)		(0.51	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.07	)		0.00			0.00			0.00
Total distributions		(0.59	)		(0.55	)		(0.51	)		0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.89		$	11.10		$	10.43		$	8.34
Total Return (%)		3.46			12.04			32.76			(12.30	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.79			0.82			0.81			0.84	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		5.46			5.79			6.86			6.97	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		29.7			33.4			31.7			45.4
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	213.6		$	155.9		$	73.6		$	6.9

* Annualized.

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Commencement of operations was 4/28/2008.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

42

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by certain Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A and E Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

43

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to futures transactions, foreign currency transactions, paydown transactions, forwards transaction, contingent payment debt instrument adjustments, defaulted bond income accruals, premium amortization adjustments, straddle loss deferral, deferred trustees’ compensation, and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Securities Lending - The Portfolio may lend its portfolio securities to certain qualified brokers who borrow securities in order to complete certain securities transactions. By lending its portfolio securities, the Portfolio attempts to increase its net investment income through the receipt of income on the loaned securities. Any gain or loss in the market price of the loaned securities that might occur and any interest earned or dividends declared during the term of the loan would accrue to the account of the Portfolio.

The Trust has entered into a securities lending arrangement with the custodian, State Street Bank and Trust Company (the “custodian”). Under this arrangement, the custodian is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash

44

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

or securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral at least equal to 102% of the market value of the loaned securities (105% for foreign equity securities), at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities must be maintained for the duration of the loan. Cash collateral is generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The Navigator Portfolio is a registered money market fund which invests in a variety of high quality U.S. dollar-denominated instruments. If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower shall be required to deliver, by the close of business on the following business day, an additional amount of collateral so that the total amount of posted collateral equals at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of net income (income after the deduction of expenses and fees of the Navigator Portfolio) on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the custodian and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by U.S. Treasuries, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the custodian. The risks associated with lending portfolio securities include, but are not limited to, possible delays in receiving additional collateral or in the recovery of the loaned securities, possible loss of rights in the collateral should the borrower fail financially, as well as risk of loss in the value of the collateral or the value of the investments made with the collateral. Net interest income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2011 is disclosed in the footnotes to the Statement of Operations. Any outstanding loans by the Portfolio at December 31, 2011 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments.

Foreign Currency Translation - The books and records of the Portfolio are maintained in U.S. dollars. The values of securities, currencies and other assets and liabilities denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars are translated into U.S. dollars based upon foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period. Purchases and sales of investment securities, income and expenses are translated on the respective dates of such transactions. Since the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, it is not practical to isolate that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates from that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities. Such fluctuations are included in the net realized and unrealized gain or loss on investments.

Net realized foreign exchange gains or losses arise from activity in forward foreign currency exchange contracts, sales of foreign currency, currency gains or losses realized between the trade and settlement dates on securities transactions, and the difference between the amounts of dividends, interest, and foreign withholding taxes recorded by the Portfolio and the U.S. dollar equivalent of the amounts actually received or paid by the Portfolio. Gains and losses attributable to foreign currency exchange rates on sales of securities are recorded as Net realized gains and losses on investments. Net unrealized foreign exchange gains and losses arise from changes in the value of assets and liabilities, other than investment securities, resulting from changes in foreign exchange rates.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

Forward Commitments and When-Issued and Delayed-Delivery Securities - The Portfolio may purchase securities on a when-issued or delayed delivery basis and may purchase or sell securities on a forward commitment basis. Settlement of such transactions normally occurs within a month or more after the purchase or sale commitment is made. The Portfolio may purchase securities under such conditions only with the intention of actually acquiring them, but may enter into a separate agreement to sell the securities before the settlement date. Since the value of securities purchased may fluctuate prior to settlement, the Portfolio may be required to pay more at settlement than the security is worth. In addition, the purchaser is not entitled to any of the interest earned prior to settlement. Upon making a commitment to purchase a security on a when-issued, delayed delivery or forward commitment basis, the Portfolio will hold liquid assets in a segregated account at the Portfolio’s custodian bank worth at least the equivalent of the amount due. The liquid assets will be monitored on a daily basis and adjusted as necessary to maintain the necessary value. As of December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had no forward commitments and when-issued and delayed-delivery securities.

Stripped Securities - The Portfolio may invest in “stripped securities,” a term used collectively for certain structured fixed income securities. Stripped securities can be principal only securities (“POs”), which are debt obligations that have been stripped of unmatured interest coupons or interest only securities (“IOs”), which are unmatured interest coupons that have been stripped from debt obligations. Stripped securities do not make periodic payments of interest prior to maturity. As is the case with all securities, the market value of stripped securities will fluctuate in response to changes in economic conditions, interest rates and the market’s perception of the securities. However, fluctuations in response to

45

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

interest rates may be greater in stripped securities than for debt obligations of comparable maturities that currently pay interest. The amount of fluctuation increases with a longer period of maturity.

The yield to maturity on IOs is sensitive to the rate of principal repayments (including prepayments) on the related underlying debt obligation and principal payments may have a material effect on yield to maturity. If the underlying debt obligation experiences greater than anticipated prepayments of principal, the Portfolio may not fully recoup the initial investment in IOs.

Loan Participations - The Portfolio may invest in loans arranged through private negotiation between one or more financial institutions. The Portfolio’s investment in any such loan may be in the form of a participation in or an assignment of the loan. In connection with purchasing participations or an assignment, the Portfolio generally will have no right to enforce compliance by the borrower with the terms of the loan agreement relating to the loan, nor any rights of set-off against the borrower and the Portfolio may not benefit directly from any collateral supporting the loan in which it has purchased the participation or assignment.

The Portfolio will assume the credit risk of both the borrower and the lender that is selling the participation. In the event of the insolvency of the lender selling the participation, the Portfolio may be treated as a general creditor of the lender and may not benefit from any set-off between the lender and the borrower.

Mortgage Related and Other Asset Backed Securities - The Portfolio may invest in mortgage related or other asset-backed securities. These securities may include mortgage pass-through securities, collateralized mortgaged obligations (“CMOs”), commercial mortgage-backed securities, mortgage dollar rolls, CMO residuals, stripped mortgage backed securities (“SMBS”) and other securities that directly or indirectly represent a participation in, or are secured by or payable from, mortgage loans on real property or other receivables. The value of some mortgage or asset-backed securities may be particularly sensitive to changes in prevailing interest rates. Early repayment of principal on some mortgage-related securities may expose the Portfolio to a lower rate of return upon reinvestment of principal. The value of these securities may fluctuate in response to the market’s perception of the creditworthiness of the issuers. Additionally, although mortgages and mortgage-related securities are generally supported by some form of government or private guarantee and/or insurance, there is no assurance that private guarantors or insurers will meet their obligations.

In one type of SMBS, one class receives all of the interest from the mortgage assets (the interest-only or “IO” class), while the other class will receive all of the principal (the principal-only or “PO” class). Payments received for the IOs are included in interest income on the Statement of Operations of the Portfolio. Because principal will not be received at the maturity of an IO, adjustments are made to the book value of the security until maturity. These adjustments are included in interest income on the Statement of Operations of the Portfolio. Payments received for POs are treated as reductions to the cost and par value of the securities. Details of mortgage related and other asset-backed securities held by the Portfolio are included in the Portfolio’s Schedule of Investments.

The Portfolio may invest a significant portion of its assets in securities of issuers that hold mortgage and asset-backed securities and direct investments in securities backed by commercial and residential mortgage loans and other financial assets. The value and related income of these securities are sensitive to changes in economic conditions, including delinquencies and/or defaults, and may be negatively impacted by increased volatility of market prices and periods of illiquidity.

High Yield Debt Securities - The Portfolio may invest in high yield debt securities, or “junk bonds,” which are securities that are rated below “investment grade” or, if not rated, are of equivalent quality. A portfolio with high yield debt securities generally will be exposed to greater market risk and credit risk than a portfolio that invests only in investment grade debt securities because issuers of high yield debt securities are less secure financially, are more likely to default on their obligations, and their securities are more sensitive to interest rate changes and downturns in the economy. In addition, the secondary market for lower-rated debt securities may not be as liquid as that for more highly rated debt securities. As a result, the Portfolio’s Subadviser may find it more difficult to value lower-rated debt securities or sell them and may have to sell them at prices significantly lower than the values assigned to them by the Portfolio.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with Pioneer Investment Management, Inc. (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

46

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year  ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$5,164,825		0.60	%	First $500 Million
		0.55	%	$500 Million to $1 Billion
		0.53	%	Over $1 Billion

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Distribution Agreement and Plan - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A and Class E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class E distribution plan provides that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.25% of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class E Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class E Shares. However, under the Class E distribution agreement, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class E distribution plan are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.15% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class E Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class E distribution plan and distribution agreement, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class E Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$17,850,313	$	414,693,710	$	6,856,543	$	248,133,453

The Portfolio engaged in security transactions with other accounts managed by Pioneer Investment Management, Inc. that amounted to $12,790,532 in Purchases and $5,864,357 in Sales of investments which are included above.

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts - The Portfolio may enter into forward foreign currency exchange contracts to hedge its portfolio holdings against the risk of future movements in certain foreign currency exchange rates. When entering into these contracts, the Portfolio agrees to receive or deliver a fixed quantity of foreign currency for an agreed-upon price on an agreed upon future date. These contracts are valued daily and the Portfolio’s net equity therein, representing unrealized gain or loss on the contracts as measured by the difference between the forward foreign exchange rates at the dates of entry into the contracts and the forward foreign exchange rates at the value date, is included in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. When a contract is closed, the Portfolio recognizes a realized gain or loss equal to the difference between the value of the contract at the time it was opened and the value at the time it was closed.

47

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments - continued

Realized and unrealized gains and losses on forward foreign currency exchange contracts are included in the Statement of Operations. These contracts involve market and/or credit risk in excess of the amount recognized in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

The use of forward foreign currency exchange contracts does not eliminate fluctuations in the underlying prices of the securities of the Portfolio, but it does establish a rate of exchange that can be achieved in the future. Although forward foreign currency exchange contracts may limit the risk of loss due to a decline in the value of the currency holdings, they also limit any potential gain that might result should the value of the currency increase. In addition, the Portfolio could be exposed to risks if the counterparties to the contracts are unable to meet the terms of the contracts. The Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit risk is the value of its currency exchanged with the counterparty. The risk is generally mitigated by having a netting arrangement between the Portfolio and the counterparty and by the posting of collateral by the counterparty to the Portfolio to cover the Portfolio’s exposure to the counterparty.

Futures Contracts - The Portfolio may buy and sell futures contracts (on recognized exchanges) as a hedge, to maintain investment exposure to a target asset class or to enhance return. The Portfolio may be subject to fluctuations in equity prices, interest rates, commodity prices and foreign currency exchange rates in the normal course of pursuing its investment objective. Futures contracts are standardized agreements to buy or sell a security, or deliver a final cash settlement price in connection with an index, interest rate, currency, or other asset. The Portfolio must deposit an amount (“initial margin”) equal to a certain percentage of the face value of the futures contract. The initial margin may be in the form of cash or securities which is returned when the Portfolio’s obligations under the contract have been satisfied. If cash is deposited as the initial margin, it is shown as “restricted cash” on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Futures contracts are marked-to-market daily and subsequent payments (“variation margin”) are made or received by the Portfolio depending on the daily fluctuations in the value of the futures contracts. These amounts are reflected as receivables or payables on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Risks of entering into futures contracts (and related options) include the possibility that the market for these instruments may be illiquid and that a change in the value of the contract or option may not correlate perfectly with changes in the value of the underlying instrument. Futures contracts are exchange traded and the exchange’s clearinghouse, as counterparty to all exchange traded futures, guarantees the futures contracts against default.

At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had the following derivatives, categorized by risk exposure:

	Asset Derivatives			Liability Derivatives
Risk Exposure	Statement of Assets and Liabilities Location	Fair Value		Statement of Assets and Liabilities Location	Fair Value
Interest Rate	Unrealized appreciation on futures contracts*	$	94,715	Unrealized depreciation on futures contracts*	$	781,009
Currency	Unrealized appreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts		127,799	Unrealized depreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts		64,642
Total		$	222,514		$	845,651

* Includes cumulative appreciation/depreciation of futures contracts as reported in the notes to financial statements. Only the current day’s variation margin is reported within the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

Transactions in derivative instruments during the year ended December 31, 2011, were as follows:

Statement of Operations Location - Net Realized Gain (Loss)	Interest Rate			Currency		Total
Future contracts	$	(3,367,479	)	$	—	$	(3,367,479	)
Foreign currency transactions		—			835,787		835,787
	$	(3,367,479	)	$	835,787	$	(2,531,692	)
Statement of Operations Location - Net Change in Unrealized Gain (Loss)
Foreign currency transactions	$	—		$	324,706	$	324,706
Future contracts		(1,988,165	)		—		(1,988,165	)
	$	(1,988,165	)	$	324,706	$	(1,663,459	)

48

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments - continued

For the year ended December 31, 2011, the average amount or number per contract outstanding for each derivative type was as follows:

Derivative Description	Average Notional or Face Amount(a)
Foreign currency transactions	$	24,639,424
Futures contracts long		9,458,333
Futures contracts short		(108,208,333	)

(a) Averages are based on activity levels during 2011.

6. Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts to Sell:

Settlement Date	Counterparty	Contracts to Deliver			Value at December 31, 2011		In Exchange for U.S.$		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
2/15/2012	UBS AG		2,415,000	AUD	$	2,463,604	$	2,398,962	$	(64,642	)
1/13/2012	Citibank N.A.		8,650,000	EUR		11,220,888		11,290,023		69,135
1/18/2012	Brown Brothers Harriman & Co.		5,000,000	EUR		6,486,237		6,520,850		34,613
2/15/2012	Citibank N.A.		500,000	EUR		648,753		672,804		24,051
Net Unrealized Appreciation									$	63,157

AUD— Australian Dollar

EUR— Euro

7. Futures Contracts

The futures contracts outstanding as of December 31, 2011, and the description and unrealized appreciation (depreciation) were as follows:

Futures Contracts - Long	Expiration Date		Number of Contracts			Contract Amount			Valuation as of December 31, 2011			Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
U.S. Treasury Bond 30 Year Futures		03/21/2012		37		$	5,309,605		$	5,358,062		$	48,457
Ultra Long U.S. Treasury Bond Futures		03/21/2012		54			8,603,867			8,650,125			46,258
Futures Contracts - Short
U.S. Treasury Note 2 Year Futures		03/30/2012		(63	)		(13,891,326	)		(13,894,453	)		(3,127	)
U.S. Treasury Note 5 Year Futures		03/30/2012		(740	)		(90,861,884	)		(91,210,782	)		(348,898	)
U.S. Treasury Note 10 Year Futures		03/21/2012		(489	)		(63,691,141	)		(64,120,125	)		(428,984	)
Net Unrealized Depreciation												$	(686,294	)

8. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

9. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio;

49

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

9. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk - continued

conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

10. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gains				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$40,318,729	$	32,010,977	$	5,397,038	$	—	$	45,715,767	$	32,010,977

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards		Total
$51,804,258	$	4,000,735	$	23,586,815	$	—	$	79,391,808

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses. At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not have any capital loss carryforwards.

11. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of

50

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

11. Recent Accounting Pronouncements - continued

related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

51

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 28, 2012

52

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

53

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

54

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

55

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

56

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the one-, three- and five-year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Barclays Capital U.S. Universal Bond Index, for the one- year period ended September 30, 2011, and outperformed its benchmark for the three- and five- year periods ended September 30, 2011. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s overall performance was satisfactory.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by

57

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees were above the Expense Group median, the Expense Universe median, and the Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board also considered that the Portfolio’s total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the Expense Group median and the Expense Universe median, and equal to the Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were below the average of the Sub-advised Expense Universe at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s expenses relative to its peers. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

58

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee and sub-advisory fee each contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s management fees are below the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

59

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio

Managed by Pyramis Global Advisors, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

Since its inception on May 2, 2011, the Class B shares of the Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio returned 8.57%. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Barclays Capital U.S. Government Bond Index¹, returned 7.94%.

Market Environment/Conditions

For the year 2011 as a whole, investment grade bond markets returned a total of 7.84%, as measured by the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Index. Price appreciation due to falling bond yields contributed most of this return. Treasury yields especially fell during a flight-to-quality in the summer months of 2011, when the European debt crisis spread from Greece, Ireland, and Portugal to the much larger Italy and Spain. For the year as a whole, the yield curve flattened and long yields fell more than short yields. Short-yields remained relatively stable at historically low levels, partly because the Federal Reserve committed itself to accommodative monetary policy into mid-2013. Other types of government bonds had mixed results. Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) performed in line with similar-duration conventional Treasuries as inflation expectations fell along with real yields. Agency debt performed in line with Treasuries because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac remained under federal conservatorship and experienced no significant changes to their expected future. Mortgage backed securities underperformed Treasuries as mortgage rates fell to generational lows, providing a strong incentive for fixed rate mortgage holders to refinance and prepay their mortgages, which could result in significant price losses for MBS holders.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

As described in the prospectus, Pyramis uses a blended index comprised of 40% Barclays U.S. Treasury 5+ Year Index/25% Barclays Capital U.S. Agency Index/35% Barclays Capital U.S. MBS Index as a guide in structuring the Portfolio and selecting its investments. Pyramis manages the Portfolio to have similar overall interest rate risk to the blended index. The following commentary is prepared relative to the aforementioned blended benchmark.

For the 2011 period, which began at the Portfolio’s inception in May, the Portfolio delivered strong performance in absolute terms but it modestly underperformed its benchmark. The portfolio’s holdings of collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) detracted modestly as investors sought after the most easily tradable types of government bonds. The Portfolio’s tactical yield curve positioning strategies also detracted, although this impacted the Portfolio more modestly. Also, the Portfolio’s cash flow management detracted in the first months of its inception as new cash needed to be invested into a rallying Treasury market. However, despite these small negatives, the Portfolio generally kept up with its benchmark during a volatile market environment, when many other active bond managers significantly underperformed their benchmarks. On the positive side, the Portfolio’s small position in long-maturity TIPS added to relative performance. The Portfolio’s MBS security selection also proved to be additive. Specifically, the Portfolio received strong performance from its holdings of MBS with a low average loan balance and from its holdings of MBS that are not Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP)-eligible.

At the end of December, the Portfolio had an underweight position in conventional Treasuries that was partially offset by a small out-of-benchmark position in short maturity and 30-year TIPS. The Portfolio also had an underweight position in government-related securities. Within the government-related sector, it underweighted the direct debt of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but it overweighted FDIC insured and other types of government-related debentures. The Portfolio also held an overweight position in MBS, with a particular emphasis on lower-coupon MBS, which are less vulnerable to fast prepayments than higher coupon MBS. Furthermore, the Portfolio sought to target MBS that are likely to prepay more slowly. For example, the Portfolio overweighted MBS that have a low average loan balance, in the belief that the fixed “points” and closing costs are a relatively greater deterrent against refinancing for lower loan-balance borrowers. Similarly, the Portfolio overweighted MBS that contain borrowers who are not eligible for HARP, in the belief that these borrowers will likely refinance their mortgages more slowly.

Bill Irving

Portfolio Manager

Franco Castagliuolo

Portfolio Manager

Pyramis Global Advisors, LLC

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio

Managed by Pyramis Global Advisors, LLC

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Issuers

	% of Net Assets
U.S. Treasury Notes		23.2
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool		14.3
U.S. Treasury Bonds		13.2
Freddie Mac 30 Yr. Gold Pool		11.4
Ginnie Mae I 30 Yr. Pool		5.1
National Credit Union Administration Guaranteed Notes		4.9
Federal Home Loan Banks		4.7
Fannie Mae 15 Yr. Pool		4.1
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.		3.5
Freddie Mac REMICS		3.1

Top Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies		79.7
Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities		10.7
Mortgage-Backed Securities		2.5
Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities		1.7
Asset-Backed Securities		1.6
Cash & Cash Equivalents		3.8

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio

Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio managed by

Pyramis Global Advisors, LLC. vs. Barclays Capital U.S. Universal Index¹

	Cumulative Return2 (for the period ended 12/31/11)
	Since Inception3
Pyramis® Government Income Portfolio—Class B		8.57%
Barclays Capital U.S. Government Bond Index1		7.94%

¹The Barclays Capital U.S. Government Bond Index is an unmanaged index considered representative of fixed-income obligations issued by the U.S. Treasury, government agencies, and quasi-federal corporations.

² “Cumulative Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gains distributions.

³ Inception of Class B shares is 5/2/2011. Index returns are based on an inception date of 5/2/2011.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class B
Actual		0.83%	$	1,000.00	$	1,075.00	$	4.34
Hypothetical*		0.83%		1,000.00		1,021.02		4.23

*  Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—91.9% of Net Assets

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed—43.0%
Fannie Mae 15 Yr. Pool 4.500%, 04/01/18		631,136	$	675,988
4.500%, 07/01/18		306,971		328,787
4.500%, 11/01/18		431,678		467,347
4.500%, 02/01/19		366,633		392,689
4.500%, 12/01/23		790,258		845,925
4.000%, 10/01/24		181,828		191,880
3.500%, 01/01/26		149,612		157,623
3.500%, 02/01/26		108,964		114,799
4.000%, 04/01/26		193,021		203,933
3.500%, 06/01/26		108,980		114,816
3.500%, 08/01/26		99,453		104,778
3.500%, 09/01/26		99,300		104,618
4.000%, 09/01/26		1,380,350		1,458,388
4.000%, 11/01/26		1,580,280		1,667,646
3.000%, TBA (a)		10,200,000		10,536,281
3.500%, TBA (a)		600,000		627,562
4.500%, TBA (a)		10,500,000		11,195,625
5.000%, TBA (a)		100,000		107,547
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool 5.500%, 01/01/35		1,812,926		1,980,969
5.000%, 04/01/35		181,546		196,360
5.000%, 05/01/35		538,226		581,976
5.000%, 07/01/35		1,023,509		1,107,025
6.000%, 05/01/37		4,647,017		5,127,131
6.000%, 09/01/37		351,376		387,350
5.500%, 05/01/38		264,622		288,406
5.500%, 06/01/38		6,298,273		6,864,355
6.000%, 07/01/38		241,271		265,972
5.500%, 09/01/38		6,383,246		6,970,929
6.000%, 10/01/38		251,087		276,793
6.000%, 11/01/38		1,467,050		1,617,245
6.000%, 09/01/39		1,847,557		2,036,708
6.000%, 04/01/40		5,514,132		6,078,664
3.500%, 10/01/40		28,151		28,985
4.000%, 11/01/40		1,824,699		1,926,814
4.500%, 11/01/40		1,874,523		2,021,409
4.000%, 01/01/41		401,713		424,194
4.000%, 02/01/41		272,640		287,898
3.500%, 03/01/41		815,191		839,367
4.000%, 03/01/41		193,562		203,577
4.500%, 03/01/41		2,814,597		3,022,117
4.500%, 04/01/41		275,508		295,821
4.500%, 07/01/41		1,615,505		1,731,965
3.500%, 08/01/41		497,053		511,795
4.500%, 08/01/41		4,355,148		4,642,228
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed—(Continued)
4.500%, 09/01/41		2,079,667	$	2,233,001
4.000%, 11/01/41		4,929,494		5,197,519
4.500%, 11/01/41		10,920,455		11,694,904
3.500%, TBA (a)		4,000,000		4,115,000
4.000%, TBA (a)		15,200,000		15,971,876
4.500%, TBA (a)		300,000		319,312
5.500%, TBA (a)		4,000,000		4,356,251
6.000%, TBA (a)		8,000,000		8,810,002
Fannie Mae REMICS 4.500%, 09/25/25		300,000		338,856
5.000%, 12/25/34		711,972		805,576
0.594%, 03/25/39 (b)		1,578,966		1,575,597
0.644%, 03/25/39 (b)		4,820,434		4,812,836
0.664%, 03/25/39 (b)		848,660		847,736
5.500%, 09/25/40 (c)		80,522		12,077
0.694%, 07/25/41 (b)		1,075,409		1,075,923
0.794%, 09/25/41 (b)		1,199,609		1,200,879
Freddie Mac 30 Yr. Gold Pool 5.000%, 07/01/35		11,607,737		12,491,422
5.500%, 03/01/39		430,764		468,067
4.500%, 05/01/39		7,337,735		7,899,042
4.500%, 06/01/39		3,864,635		4,173,552
4.500%, 07/01/39		2,734,763		2,901,233
4.500%, 09/01/39		4,894,516		5,285,756
4.500%, 11/01/39		6,842,896		7,389,879
4.500%, 12/01/39		926,996		983,424
5.500%, 12/01/39		1,928,698		2,095,719
4.500%, 12/01/40		291,587		312,995
4.500%, 02/01/41		1,616,097		1,732,777
4.500%, 03/01/41		298,667		320,596
4.500%, 08/01/41		4,268,007		4,531,641
4.000%, 09/01/41		6,587,381		6,944,707
4.000%, 10/01/41		1,897,151		2,000,060
4.500%, 10/01/41		576,193		615,949
4.000%, TBA (a)		19,900,000		20,876,344
5.000%, TBA (a)		1,000,000		1,074,688
Freddie Mac REMICS 1.200%, 07/15/15		1,000,784		1,002,248
3.000%, 06/15/18		2,044,163		2,115,477
0.508%, 02/15/19 (b)		4,998,876		4,993,611
3.000%, 04/15/20		9,095,298		9,408,573
4.000%, 02/15/22		200,000		218,606
5.000%, 09/15/23		100,000		114,040
5.000%, 10/15/34		915,122		1,031,501
0.628%, 05/15/38 (b)		388,767		388,195
0.628%, 04/15/40 (b)		1,423,292		1,420,974

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed—(Continued)
0.678%, 11/15/40 (b)		649,055	$	649,598
4.500%, 02/15/41		95,880		103,749
5.000%, 03/15/41		500,000		566,622
Freddie Mac Strips 0.578%, 07/15/36 (b)		1,337,374		1,341,231
Ginnie Mae 5.500%, 07/16/34		545,105		646,984
0.605%, 08/20/34 (b)		8,381,147		8,406,834
5.500%, 08/20/34		478,139		572,560
0.738%, 04/20/40 (d)(e)		108,314		93,399
4.500%, 05/16/40		80,000		89,716
0.573%, 05/20/40 (d)(e)		94,454		82,809
0.721%, 06/20/40 (d)(e)		124,861		107,335
0.589%, 07/20/60 (b)		430,728		421,424
0.545%, 08/20/60 (b)		336,692		329,487
0.545%, 09/20/60 (b)		340,249		334,294
0.745%, 12/20/60 (b)		920,800		911,224
0.735%, 02/20/61 (b)		445,799		440,503
0.745%, 02/20/61 (b)		121,239		119,572
0.745%, 04/20/61 (b)		342,345		338,819
0.745%, 05/20/61 (b)		683,799		679,655
0.775%, 06/20/61 (b)		484,744		480,673
0.845%, 10/20/61 (b)		1,477,443		1,469,613
Ginnie Mae I 15 Yr. Pool 4.000%, 03/15/26		589,115		633,098
4.000%, 04/15/26		1,320,073		1,418,629
4.000%, 05/15/26		1,169,890		1,257,233
4.000%, 06/15/26		578,900		622,121
Ginnie Mae I 30 Yr. Pool 6.000%, 06/15/36		266,523		302,337
5.000%, 03/15/39		450,000		501,132
4.500%, 07/15/39		86,401		94,465
5.000%, 07/15/39		1,102,615		1,223,199
5.000%, 08/15/39		600,000		668,175
5.000%, 09/15/39		650,000		723,856
5.500%, 10/15/39		176,981		198,874
5.000%, 11/15/39		200,000		222,725
5.000%, 04/15/40		178,086		197,486
4.500%, 06/15/40		102,407		111,742
5.000%, 06/15/40		574,839		637,460
5.000%, 07/15/40		196,854		218,299
5.000%, 08/15/40		593,844		661,320
4.000%, 09/15/40		3,625,664		3,913,338
4.000%, 03/15/41		1,585,601		1,711,408
4.500%, 03/15/41		3,878,612		4,239,242
5.000%, 04/15/41		500,000		556,765
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed—(Continued)
4.000%, 10/15/41		1,408,723	$	1,519,270
4.000%, 11/15/41		497,957		536,299
4.000%, 12/15/41		1,990,500		2,145,654
3.500%, TBA(a)		9,600,000		10,029,000
4.000%, TBA(a)		2,900,000		3,111,609
5.000%, TBA(a)		2,598,908		2,879,103
Ginnie Mae II 30 Yr. Pool 4.000%, 09/20/39		703,673		754,008
5.000%, 10/20/39		504,020		558,233
5.000%, 04/20/40		601,239		665,722
5.000%, 06/20/40		207,157		229,375
5.000%, 07/20/40		784,800		868,969
5.000%, 08/20/40		743,610		823,362
4.500%, 09/20/40		92,925		101,648
4.000%, 11/20/40		500,625		536,591
4.000%, 12/20/40		495,533		531,134
				308,759,688
Federal Agencies—11.5%
Federal Home Loan Banks 3.625%, 10/18/13		1,975,000		2,088,248
0.375%, 11/27/13		10,890,000		10,882,998
1.375%, 05/28/14		14,800,000		15,100,588
5.250%, 06/18/14		5,360,000		5,969,110
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. 0.375%, 11/30/12		500,000		501,087
0.375%, 11/27/13		2,535,000		2,532,103
1.000%, 08/27/14		3,000,000		3,031,179
0.750%, 11/25/14		7,043,000		7,060,410
0.625%, 12/29/14		1,837,000		1,837,011
2.000%, 08/25/16		7,106,000		7,397,488
6.750%, 03/15/31		481,000		725,317
6.250%, 07/15/32		1,368,000		1,997,591
Federal National Mortgage Association 4.375%, 09/15/12		2,000,000		2,058,656
4.750%, 11/19/12		700,000		727,969
0.875%, 08/28/14		1,905,000		1,915,548
0.750%, 12/19/14		7,500,000		7,528,628
1.375%, 11/15/16		5,466,000		5,520,758
6.625%, 11/15/30		1,430,000		2,124,575
Tennessee Valley Authority 3.875%, 02/15/21		2,615,000		2,989,285
5.250%, 09/15/39		472,000		604,944
				82,593,493

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
U.S. Treasury—37.4%
U.S. Treasury Bonds 5.250%, 02/15/29		28,251,000	$	39,034,943
4.375%, 05/15/41		8,199,000		10,684,322
3.750%, 08/15/41		26,274,000		30,904,792
3.125%, 11/15/41		13,300,000		13,935,913
U.S. Treasury Inflation Indexed Bonds 2.125%, 02/15/41		1,756,766		2,377,261
U.S. Treasury Inflation Indexed Notes 2.000%, 04/15/12		4,377,597		4,399,485
U.S. Treasury Notes 0.125%, 09/30/13		398,000		397,269
0.250%, 11/30/13		200,000		200,055
0.125%, 12/31/13		4,200,000		4,190,155
0.500%, 10/15/14		2,104,000		2,113,041
2.000%, 04/30/16		450,000		475,242
1.000%, 09/30/16		21,415,000		21,639,194
1.000%, 10/31/16		13,900,000		14,036,832
0.875%, 11/30/16		14,586,000		14,632,719
0.875%, 12/31/16		9,600,000		9,618,749
2.625%, 04/30/18		130,000		141,568
2.375%, 05/31/18		850,000		911,625
1.750%, 10/31/18		43,938,000		45,228,679
1.375%, 12/31/18		33,663,000		33,731,370
3.125%, 05/15/21		347,000		387,501
2.125%, 08/15/21		4,232,000		4,341,105
2.000%, 11/15/21		14,500,000		14,667,664
				268,049,484
Total U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies (Cost $651,566,752)				659,402,665
Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities—12.4%
Capital Markets—1.6%
State Street Corp. 2.150%, 04/30/12		11,125,000		11,200,939
Commercial Banks—0.8%
Citibank N.A. 1.750%, 12/28/12		2,000,000		2,031,064
PNC Funding Corp. 2.300%, 06/22/12		3,700,000		3,737,307
				5,768,371
Consumer Finance—0.5%
Ally Financial, Inc. 2.200%, 12/19/12		3,500,000	$	3,568,495
Diversified Financial Services—5.9%
Citigroup Funding, Inc. 1.875%, 10/22/12		2,150,000		2,180,018
2.250%, 12/10/12		3,000,000		3,056,424
General Electric Capital Corp.
2.200%, 06/08/12		5,142,000		5,189,759
2.000%, 09/28/12		2,000,000		2,027,580
2.125%, 12/21/12		4,944,000		5,037,180
John Deere Capital Corp.
2.875%, 06/19/12		3,093,000		3,133,478
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
2.125%, 12/26/12		6,548,000		6,672,163
National Credit Union Administration Guaranteed Notes
1.400%, 06/12/15		50,000		50,649
2.350%, 06/12/17		5,470,000		5,654,777
3.450%, 06/12/21		8,645,000		9,312,135
				42,314,163
Food & Staples Retailing—0.7%
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
4.550%, 05/01/13		5,000,000		5,278,990
Household Products—0.7%
Procter & Gamble Co. (The)
1.375%, 08/01/12		5,000,000		5,024,735
IT Services—0.7%
International Business Machines Corp.
4.750%, 11/29/12		5,000,000		5,171,455
Pharmaceuticals—1.5%
Johnson & Johnson
5.150%, 08/15/12		5,000,000		5,144,635
Merck & Co., Inc.
4.375%, 02/15/13		5,000,000		5,216,300
				10,360,935
Total Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities (Cost $89,104,626)				88,688,083

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Mortgage-Backed Securities—2.8%

Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Collateralized Mortgage Obligations—2.8%
Morgan Stanley Reremic Trust Series 2010-R3 Class 3A
0.497%, 06/26/36(144A)(b)		374,818	$	370,429
National Credit Union Administration Guaranteed Notes
Series 2010-R2 Class 1A
0.644%, 11/06/17(b)		4,078,967		4,078,967
Series 2011-R1 Class 1A
0.724%, 01/08/20(b)		14,808,037		14,833,507
Series 2011-R4 Class 1A
0.654%, 03/06/20(b)		895,921		895,921
Total Mortgage-Backed Securities (Cost $20,208,929)				20,178,824
Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities—2.0%
Sovereign—2.0%
Israel Government AID Bond
5.500%, 09/18/23		7,738,000		9,901,545
5.500%, 12/04/23		3,350,000		4,281,384
Total Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities (Cost $13,971,504)				14,182,929
Asset-Backed Securities—1.8%
Asset-Backed - Automobiles—0.4%
Avis Budget Rental Car Funding AESOP LLC Series 2007-2A Class A
0.425%, 08/20/13(144A)(b)		3,070,000		3,042,201
Asset-Backed - Credit Card—0.3%
Citibank Omni Master Trust Series 2009-A8 Class A8
2.378%, 05/16/16(144A)(b)		2,000,000		2,012,470
Asset-Backed - Other—1.1%
Ally Master Owner Trust Series 2010-1 Class A
2.028%, 01/15/15(144A)(b)		4,450,000		4,505,180
Ford Credit Floorplan Master Owner Trust Series 2010-1 Class A
1.928%, 12/15/14(144A)(b)		3,710,000		3,750,712
				8,255,892
Total Asset-Backed Securities (Cost $13,320,203)				13,310,563
Short-Term Investment—4.4%
Security Description	Par Amount($)†		Value
Repurchase Agreement — 4.4%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $31,622,035 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $32,215,000 Federal Home Loan Bank at 0.255% due 7/20/12 with a value of $32,255,269.		31,622,000	$	31,622,000
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $31,622,000)				31,622,000
Total Investments—115.3% (Cost $819,794,014#)				827,385,064
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(15.3)%				(109,870,169	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	717,514,895

† Par amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $819,242,389. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $9,593,794 and $(1,451,119), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $8,142,675 for federal income tax purposes.

(a) This security is traded on a “to-be-announced” basis.

(b) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2011. Maturity date shown for callable securities reflects the earliest possible call date.

(c) Interest only security.

(d) Principal only security.

(e) Zero coupon bond—Interest rate represents current yield to maturity.

(144A)— Securities exempt from registration under Rule 144A of the Securities Act of 1933. These securities may be resold in transactions exempt from registration, normally to qualified institutional buyers. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of 144A securities was $13,680,992, which is 1.9% of net assets.

(TBA)— To Be Announced

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Forward Sales Commitments
Security Sold Short	Counterparty		Interest Rate			Maturity		Face Amount			Value
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool		JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		5.000	%		TBA	$	(1,828,031	)	$	(1,836,797	)
Freddie Mac 30 Yr. Gold Pool		JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		4.500	%		TBA		(3,163,125	)		(3,179,531	)
								$	(4,991,156	)	$	(5,016,328	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Finanical Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2			Level 3		Total
Total U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies*	$	—	$	659,402,665		$	—	$	659,402,665
Total Domestic Bonds & Debt Securities*		—		88,688,083			—		88,688,083
Total Mortgage-Backed Securities*		—		20,178,824			—		20,178,824
Total Foreign Bonds & Debt Securities*		—		14,182,929			—		14,182,929
Total Asset-Backed Securities*		—		13,310,563			—		13,310,563
Total Short-Term Investments*		—		31,622,000			—		31,622,000
Total Investments	$	—	$	827,385,064		$	—	$	827,385,064
Forward Sales Commitments	$	—	$	(5,016,328	)	$	—	$	(5,016,328	)
Swap Contracts**
Swap Contracts at Value (Assets)	$	—	$	11,752		$	—	$	11,752
Swap Contracts at Value (Liabilities)		—		—			—		—
Total Swap Contracts	$	—	$	11,752		$	—	$	11,752

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

** Swap contracts are presented at value.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)	$	795,763,064
Repurchase Agreement		31,622,000
Cash		986
Receivable for investments sold		68,936,087
Receivable for shares sold		4,318,337
Interest receivable		2,947,914
Swap interest receivable		3,584
Swaps at market value		11,752
Total assets		903,603,724
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		180,531,301
Shares redeemed		94,528
Forward sales commitments, at value (b)		5,016,328
Interest payable forward sales commitments		6,722
Swap interest		156
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		243,903
Distribution and service fees - Class B		137,576
Administration fees		2,816
Custodian and accounting fees		4,306
Deferred trustees’ fees		5,674
Other expenses		45,519
Total liabilities		186,088,829
Net Assets	$	717,514,895
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	707,852,842
Accumulated net realized gain		1,916,703
Unrealized appreciation on investments, forward sales commitments and swap contracts		7,577,630
Undistributed net investment income		167,720
Net Assets	$	717,514,895
Net Assets
Class B	$	717,514,895
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class B		66,881,429
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class B	$	10.73

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreement, was $788,172,014.

(b) Proceeds of forward sales commitments was $4,991,156.

Statement of Operations

For the Period Ended December 31, 2011*

Investment Income
Interest	$	4,178,520
Total investment income		4,178,520
Expenses
Management fees		868,259
Administration fees		10,819
Custodian and accounting fees		38,503
Distribution and service fees - Class B		471,748
Audit and tax services		56,425
Legal		75,084
Trustees’ fees and expenses		24,598
Shareholder reporting		33,381
Insurance		459
Organizational expense		1,300
Miscellaneous		5,643
Total expenses		1,586,219
Net investment income		2,592,301
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments and Swaps Contracts
Net realized gain on:
Investments		7,711,103
Swap contracts		3,136
Net realized gain on investments and swap contracts		7,714,239
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on:
Investments		7,565,878
Swap contracts		11,752
Net change in unrealized appreciation on investments, forward sales commitments and swap contracts		7,577,630
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments, forward sales commitments and swap contracts		15,291,869
Net Increase in Net Assets from Operations	$	17,884,170

* Commencement of operations was 5/2/2011.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio

Statement of Changes in Net Assets

	Period Ended December 31, 2011*
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	2,592,301
Net realized gain on investments and swap contracts		7,714,239
Net change in unrealized appreciation on investments and swap contracts		7,577,630
Net increase in net assets resulting from operations		17,884,170
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class B		(2,564,614	)
From net realized capital gains
Class B		(5,690,975	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(8,255,589	)
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		707,886,314
Net Increase in Net Assets		717,514,895
Net assets at end of period	$	717,514,895
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	167,720

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Period Ended December 31, 2011*
	Shares			Value
Class B
Sales		68,363,407		$	723,556,445
Reinvestments		770,830			8,255,589
Redemptions		(2,252,808	)		(23,925,720	)
Net increase		66,881,429		$	707,886,314
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	707,886,314

* Commencement of operations was 5/2/2011.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class B
	Period Ended December 31, 2011(a)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.00
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(b)		0.10
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments		0.76
Total from investment operations		0.86
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.04	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.09	)
Total distributions		(0.13	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.73
Total Return (%)		8.57	**
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)(c)		0.84	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(d)		0.84	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.37	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		365.8
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	717.5

* Annualized.

** Not annualized.

(a) Commencement of operations was 5/2/2011.

(b) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(c) See Note 3 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

(d) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio (the “Portfolio”) (commenced operations on May 2, 2011), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class B Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Swap contracts are marked-to-market daily based on quotations and prices supplied by market makers, broker-dealers and pricing services. Such quotations and prices are derived utilizing significant observable data, including the underlying investments. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns will remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service for three fiscal years after the returns are filed.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to futures transactions, foreign currency transactions, swap transactions, options transactions, premium amortization adjustments, paydown transactions, contingent payment debt instrument adjustments, forward transactions, deferred trustees’ compensation, and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Short Sales - The Portfolio may enter into a “short sale” of securities in circumstances in which, at the time the short position is open, the Portfolio owns an equal amount of the securities sold short or owns preferred stocks or debt securities, convertible or exchangeable without payment of further consideration, into an equal number of securities sold short. This kind of short sale, which is referred as one “against the box,” may be entered into by the Portfolio to, for example, lock in a sale price for a security the Portfolio does not wish to sell immediately.

The Portfolio may also make short sales of a security it does not own, in anticipation of a decline in the market value of that security. To complete such a transaction, the Portfolio must borrow the security to make delivery to the buyer. The Portfolio then is obligated to replace the security

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

borrowed by purchasing it at market price at the time of replacement. The price at such time may be more or less than the price at which the security was sold by the Portfolio. Until the security is replaced, the Portfolio is required to pay to the lender any dividends or interest which accrue during the period of the loan. To borrow the security, the Portfolio also may be required to pay a premium, which would increase the cost of the security sold. The proceeds of the short sale will be retained by the broker, to the extent necessary to meet margin requirements, until the short position is closed out. Until the Portfolio replaces a borrowed security, the Portfolio will segregate with its custodian, or earmark, cash or other liquid assets at such a level that (i) the amount segregated, or earmarked, plus the amount deposited with the broker as collateral will equal the current value of the security sold short and (ii) the amount segregated plus the amount deposited with the broker as collateral will not be less than the market value of the security at the time it was sold short. The Portfolio will incur a loss as a result of the short sale if the price of the security increases between the date of the short sale and the date on which the Portfolio replaces the borrowed security. The Portfolio will realize a gain if the security declines in price between those dates. This result is the opposite of what one would expect from a cash purchase of a long position in a security. The amount of any gain will be decreased, and the amount of any loss increased, by the amount of any premium, dividends or interest the Portfolio may be required to pay in connection with a short sale. No more than one third of the Portfolio’s net assets will be, when added together: (i) deposited as collateral for the obligation to replace securities borrowed to effect short sales; and (ii) segregated in connection with short sales.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

Forward Commitments and When-Issued and Delayed-Delivery Securities - The Portfolio may purchase securities on a when-issued or delayed delivery basis and may purchase or sell securities on a forward commitment basis. Settlement of such transactions normally occurs within a month or more after the purchase or sale commitment is made. The Portfolio may purchase securities under such conditions only with the intention of actually acquiring them, but may enter into a separate agreement to sell the securities before the settlement date. Since the value of securities purchased may fluctuate prior to settlement, the Portfolio may be required to pay more at settlement than the security is worth. In addition, the purchaser is not entitled to any of the interest earned prior to settlement. Upon making a commitment to purchase a security on a when-issued, delayed delivery or forward commitment basis, the Portfolio will hold liquid assets in a segregated account at the Portfolio’s custodian bank worth at least the equivalent of the amount due. The liquid assets will be monitored on a daily basis and adjusted as necessary to maintain the necessary value.

Stripped Securities - The Portfolio may invest in “stripped securities,” a term used collectively for certain structured fixed income securities. Stripped securities can be principal only securities (“POs”), which are debt obligations that have been stripped of unmatured interest coupons or interest only securities (“IOs”), which are unmatured interest coupons that have been stripped from debt obligations. Stripped securities do not make periodic payments of interest prior to maturity. As is the case with all securities, the market value of stripped securities will fluctuate in response to changes in economic conditions, interest rates and the market’s perception of the securities. However, fluctuations in response to interest rates may be greater in stripped securities than for debt obligations of comparable maturities that currently pay interest. The amount of fluctuation increases with a longer period of maturity.

Mortgage Dollar Rolls - The Portfolio may enter into mortgage “dollar rolls” in which a Portfolio sells TBA mortgage-backed securities for delivery in the current month and simultaneously contracts to repurchase substantially similar (same type, coupon and maturity) securities on a specified future date. During the roll period, the Portfolio foregoes principal (including prepayments of principal) and interest paid on the securities sold. Dollar rolls are accounted for as purchase and sale transactions; gain or loss is recognized at the commencement of the term of the dollar roll and each time the mortgage-backed security is rolled.

A Portfolio that enters into mortgage dollar rolls is subject to the risk that the market value of the securities the Portfolio is obligated to repurchase may decline below the agreed upon repurchase price. In the event the buyer of securities under a mortgage dollar roll files for bankruptcy or becomes insolvent, the Portfolio’s use of proceeds from the dollar roll may be restricted pending a court determination, a determination by the other party, or its trustee or receiver, whether to enforce the Portfolio’s obligation to repurchase the securities sold.

TBA Purchase & Sale Commitments - The Portfolio may enter into TBA commitments to purchase or sell securities for a fixed price at a future date. TBA commitments are considered securities in themselves, and involve a risk of loss if the value of the security to be purchased or sold

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

declines or increases prior to settlement date, which is in addition to the risk of decline in the value of the Portfolio’s other assets. Unsettled TBA commitments are valued at the current market value of the underlying securities, according to the procedures described under “Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements”.

Mortgage Related and Other Asset Backed Securities - The Portfolio may invest in mortgage related or other asset-backed securities. These securities may include mortgage pass-through securities, collateralized mortgaged obligations (“CMOs”), commercial mortgage-backed securities, mortgage dollar rolls, CMO residuals, stripped mortgage backed securities (“SMBS”) and other securities that directly or indirectly represent a participation in, or are secured by or payable from, mortgage loans on real property or other receivables. The value of some mortgage or asset-backed securities may be particularly sensitive to changes in prevailing interest rates. Early repayment of principal on some mortgage-related securities may expose the Portfolio to a lower rate of return upon reinvestment of principal. The value of these securities may fluctuate in response to the market’s perception of the creditworthiness of the issuers. Additionally, although mortgages and mortgage-related securities are generally supported by some form of government or private guarantee and/or insurance, there is no assurance that private guarantors or insurers will meet their obligations.

In one type of SMBS, one class receives all of the interest from the mortgage assets (the interest-only or “IO” class), while the other class will receive all of the principal (the principal-only or “PO” class). Payments received for the IOs are included in interest income on the Statement of Operations of the Portfolio. Because principal will not be received at the maturity of an IO, adjustments are made to the book value of the security until maturity. These adjustments are included in interest income on the Statement of Operations of the Portfolio. Payments received for POs are treated as reductions to the cost and par value of the securities. Details of mortgage related and other asset-backed securities held by the Portfolio are included in the Portfolio’s Schedule of Investments.

The Portfolio may invest a significant portion of its assets in securities of issuers that hold mortgage and asset-backed securities and direct investments in securities backed by commercial and residential mortgage loans and other financial assets. The value and related income of these securities are sensitive to changes in economic conditions, including delinquencies and/or defaults, and may be negatively impacted by increased volatility of market prices and periods of illiquidity.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with Pyramis Global Advisors, LLC (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the period ended December 31, 2011	% per annum	Average Daily Net Assets
$868,259	0.520%	First $100 Million
	0.440%	$100 Million to $500 Million
	0.400%	Over $500 Million

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Expense Limitation Agreement - The Adviser has entered into an expense limitation agreement with the Trust (“Expense Limitation Agreement”) in the interest of limiting expenses of the Portfolio. The Expense Limitation Agreement shall continue in effect with respect to the Portfolio until October 31, 2012. Pursuant to that Expense Limitation Agreement, the Adviser has agreed to waive or limit its fees and to assume other expenses so that the total annual operating expenses of the Portfolio other than interest, taxes, brokerage commissions, other expenditures

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

which are capitalized or expensed in accordance with GAAP, other extraordinary expenses not incurred in the ordinary course of the Portfolio’s business and acquired fund fees and expenses but including amounts payable pursuant to a plan adopted in accordance with Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act, are limited to the following expense ratio as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets:

Maximum Expense Ratio under current
Expense Limitation  Agreement

Class B

1.05%

If in any year in which the Management Agreement is still in effect, the estimated aggregate operating expenses of the Portfolio for the fiscal year are less than the Maximum Expense Ratio for that year, subject to approval by the Trust’s Board, the Adviser shall be entitled to reimbursement by the Portfolio to the extent that the charge does not cause the expenses in such subsequent year to exceed the Maximum Expense Ratio as stated above. The Portfolio is not obligated to repay any expense paid by the Adviser more than five years after the end of the fiscal year in which such expense was incurred.

Distribution Agreement and Plan - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B distribution plan provides that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B Shares. However, under the Class B distribution agreement, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B distribution plan are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the period ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B distribution plan and distribution agreement the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the period ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$1,978,566,094	$	101,831,964	$	1,298,358,303	$	1,608,743

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments

Swap Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into swap contracts. Swap contracts are derivatives agreements to exchange the return generated by one instrument for the return generated by another instrument. The payment streams are calculated by reference to a specified index and agreed upon notional amount. The term “specified index” includes, but is not limited to, currencies, fixed interest rates, prices and total return on interest rate indices, fixed income indices, stock indices and commodity indices (as well as amounts derived from arithmetic operations on these indices). A Portfolio will usually enter into swaps on a net basis, i.e., the two payment streams are netted out in a cash settlement on the payment date or dates specified in the instrument, with the Portfolio receiving or paying, as the case may be, only the net amount of the two payments. The Portfolio’s obligations under a swap agreement will be accrued daily (offset against any amounts owing to the Portfolio) and any accrued but unpaid net amounts owed to a swap counterparty will be covered by designating the segregation, either on its records or with the Trust’s custodian, of cash or other liquid assets, to avoid any potential leveraging of the Portfolio. The Portfolio may enter into swap transactions with

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments - continued

counterparties that are approved by the investment adviser in accordance with guidelines established by the Board. These guidelines provide for a minimum credit rating for each counterparty and various credit enhancement techniques (for example, collateralization of amounts due from counterparties) to limit exposure to counterparties that have lower credit ratings.

An index swap is an agreement to swap cash flows on a notional amount based on changes in the values of the reference indices.

Currency Swaps: A currency swap is an agreement to exchange cash flows on a notional amount of two or more currencies based on the relative value differential among them. Such swaps may involve initial and final exchanges that correspond to the agreed upon notional amount. Currency swaps usually involve the delivery of the entire principal value of one designated currency in exchange for the other designated currency. Therefore, the entire principal value of a currency swap is subject to the risk that the other party to the swap will default on its contractual delivery obligations. If there is a default by the counterparty, the Portfolio may have contractual remedies pursuant to the agreements related to the transaction. Equity swaps are two-party contracts that generally obligate one party to pay the positive return and the other party to pay the negative return on a specified reference security, basket of securities, security index or index component during the period of the swap.

Equity swap contracts are marked to market daily based on the value of the underlying security and the change, if any, is recorded as an unrealized gain or loss. Equity swaps normally do not involve the delivery of securities or other underlying assets. If the other party to an equity swap defaults, a Portfolio’s risk of loss consists of the net amount of payments that such Portfolio is contractually entitled to receive, if any. Equity swaps are derivatives and their value can be very volatile.

Interest Rate Swaps: The Portfolio may enter into interest rate swaps and the purchase or sale of related caps and floors. The Portfolio may enter into these transactions primarily to manage its exposure to interest rates, to protect against currency fluctuations, or to preserve a return or spread on a particular investment. The Portfolio is subject to interest rate risk exposure in the normal course of pursuing its investment objectives. Because the Portfolio holds has exposure to fixed income securities, the value of these securities may decrease if interest rates rise. To help hedge against this risk and to maintain its ability to generate income at prevailing market rates, the Portfolio may enter into interest rate swap contracts. Interest rate swaps are arrangements between two parties to exchange cash flows based on a notional principal amount, to manage the Portfolio’s exposure to interest rate risk. Interest rate swap contracts are marked-to-market daily based upon quotations from market makers and the change, if any, is recorded as unrealized gain or loss. Payments received or made are recorded as realized gains or losses. The Portfolio could be exposed to credit or market risk due to unfavorable changes in the fluctuation of interest rates or if the counterparty defaults on its obligation to perform. Risks may exceed amounts recognized on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The purchase of a cap entitles the purchaser, to the extent that a specific index exceeds a predetermined interest rate, to receive payments of interest on a notional principal amount from the party selling such cap. The purchase of a floor entitles the purchaser to receive payments on a notional principal amount from the party selling such floor to the extent that a specified index falls below a predetermined interest rate or amount. The Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit risk, as opposed to investment and other types of risk, in respect of interest rate swaps is typically the discounted net value of the cash flows to be received from the counterparty over the contract’s remaining life, to the extent that amount is positive, plus the cost of entering into a similar transaction with another counterparty, if possible.

The swaps in which the Portfolio may engage may include instruments under which one party pays a single or periodic fixed amount(s) (or premium), and the other party pays periodic amounts based on the movement of a specified index. Swaps do not involve the delivery of securities, other underlying assets, or principal. The Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit risk, as opposed to investment and other types of risk, in respect of swaps is typically the discounted net value of the cash flows to be received from the counterparty over the contract’s remaining life to the extent that such amount is positive, plus the cost of entering into a similar transaction with another counterparty, if possible.

The use of swaps is a highly specialized activity that involves investment techniques and risks different from those associated with ordinary portfolio securities transactions. If the Adviser or Subadviser is incorrect in its forecasts of market values, interest rates, and currency exchange rates, the investment performance of the Portfolio would be less favorable than it would have been if this investment technique were not used.

At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had the following derivatives, categorized by risk exposure:

	Asset Derivatives			Liability Derivatives
Risk Exposure	Statement of Assets and Liabilities Location	Fair Value		Statement of Assets and Liabilities Location	Fair Value
Interest Rate	Swaps at market value	$	11,752	Swaps at market value	$	—

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments - continued

Transactions in derivative instruments during the period ended December 31, 2011, were as follows:

Statement of Operations Location - Net Realized Gain (Loss)	Interest Rate
Swap contracts	$	3,136
Statement of Operations Location - Net Change in Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation)
Swap contracts	$	11,752

For the period ended December 31, 2011, the average amount or number per contract outstanding for each derivative type was as follows:

Derivative Description	Average Notional or Face Amount(a)
Swap contracts		400,000

(a) Averages are based on activity levels during 2011.

6. Swap Agreements

Open interest rate swap agreements at December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Pay/Receive Floating Rate	Floating Rate Index		Fixed Rate			Maturity Date		Counterparty		Notional Amount			Market Value		Upfront Premium Paid/ (Received)		Unrealized Appreciation
Pay		USD 3ML		2.321	%		8/12/2021		Deutsche Bank AG		USD	400,000	$	11,752	$	—	$	11,752
Total													$	11,752	$	—	$	11,752

7. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

8. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

9. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the period ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Ordinary Income	Long-Term Capital Gain		Total
$8,255,589	$	—	$	8,255,589

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards		Total
$1,538,472	$	—	$	8,129,255	$	—	$	9,667,727

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses. At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not have any capital loss carryforwards.

10. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”), as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations, the statement of changes in net assets, and the financial highlights for the period from May 2, 2011 (commencement of operations) to December 31, 2011. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audit included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, and the results of its operations, the changes in its net assets, and the financial highlights for the period from May 2, 2011 (commencement of operations) to December 31, 2011, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 28, 2012

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

25

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio

Managed by Rainier Investment Management, Inc.

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A and B shares of the Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio returned -3.54% and -3.84%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmarks, the Russell 1000 Index¹ and the Russell 1000 Growth Index², returned 1.50% and 2.64%, respectively.

Market Environment / Conditions

U.S. indices finished around breakeven for 2011. As challenging as U.S. equity markets proved to be, they were much better than other global markets for the year. The MSCI Emerging Markets Index was down about 20%, and most developed markets were off more than 10% in 2011. There were plenty of other noteworthy contrasts.

Small- and mid-capitalization shares averaged solid double-digit gains toward the end of the year, but they were, on average, trounced by their large-cap brethren for the full year. The S&P 500, which broke even on a price basis for the year, was bookended by the mega-cap dominated Dow Jones Industrial Average and the small-cap Russell 2000 Index, the former up 5.5%, the latter down 5.5%. The Dow’s gains were evidence of the popularity of mega-capitalization stocks—ones typically larger than $50 billion in market cap—and high dividend yield shares. Whereas over a multi-decade period the Dow has lagged due to relatively modest long-term growth and the maturity of most of these companies’ markets, many investors sought refuge in these lower volatility equities in response to the confused and fear-dominated market environment that took hold around mid-year.

The Utilities, Consumer Staples and Health Care sectors were leading performers for 2011. The defensive nature of these sectors gave them a lead in the late spring and summer months, when a swell of angst developed related to European sovereign debt fears and emerging world growth deceleration, exacerbated by political gridlock in Washington and the S&P credit downgrade of U.S. sovereign debt. (Ironically, 30-year Treasuries were among the best investments for the year, returning about 35%). Energy, Industrials and Materials stocks finished in the middle or lower end of the pack for the full year.

There is indeed ample reason to be concerned about the state of the world. Whereas governments and regulatory bodies learned a lot from the 2008 credit crisis and corporations are much healthier financially, heightened Eurozone debt and the apparent German-led European response of austerity bode ill for European economic growth in the near-term. While austerity may be good medicine in the long run, it is surely depressing the current European economic climate. The implications for growth in the emerging world and the U.S. are negative. Again, however, there is contrast and disparity. As Europe decelerates, recent U.S. economic data has been surprisingly encouraging. Housing starts are trending up, credit card usage and delinquencies are improving significantly, unemployment claims are coming down, rail car loadings have surged, and consumer confidence has recently improved meaningfully.

Portfolio Review / Year-End Positioning

The Large Cap Equity portfolio lagged the Russell 1000 and Russell 1000 Growth Indexes for the year. The Portfolio’s returns were clearly disappointing. While we missed investment opportunities in a few large companies which fundamentally over-achieved, in general our stock selections were the opposite of what was favored by the market—namely mega-capitalization stocks with high dividend yields. Conversely, our emphasis on stocks with above sector-average earnings growth selling at reasonable prices (and even above-average dividend growth) was generally shunned by the market this year as well.

Within the Russell 1000, defensive sectors such as Utilities, Health care and Consumer Staples had the highest absolute returns and financial services and materials & processing trailed all other sectors substantially. An underweight in the most defensive sectors caused the Portfolio to lag in the year, while stocks in the more cyclical Producer Durables and Technology sectors also led to underperformance.

Industrials was the weakest relative sector in 2011 and about a quarter of total underperformance is attributable to this sector. Although stocks such as ManpowerGroup and Paccar, Inc. underperformed, the sector benefited from the positive impact of Goodrich Corp. being purchased by United Technologies.

Information Technology shares were also detractors for the year, accounting for about a quarter of relative underperformance. Rovi Corp., an intellectual property licensing firm known for its TV program guides, Juniper Networks, Inc. (communications/networking gear) and Broadcom Corp. (semiconductors) were the worst performers for the year. On the positive side, credit card companies MasterCard, Inc. and Visa, Inc. were two of the largest contributors in the year, each of which exhibited strong earnings and substantial positive estimate revisions on higher volumes of electronic transactions throughout the year. A significant active weight in Apple, Inc. also aided portfolio results as new product enhancements such as the iPhone 4s continued to drive revenue and profit growth. Additionally, Check Point Software Technologies, Ltd. remained the leader in the growing area of security software and benefited performance.

Similar to Information Technology, Consumer Discretionary shares detracted from relative results for the year. In short, the underperformance of Marriott International, Inc. and Abercrombie & Fitch Co. overwhelmed the outperformance of Limited Brands, Inc. and CBS Corp.

Utilities and Consumer Staples were the top absolute performers in 2011, indicative of investors’ preference for defensive stocks. These sectors, as well as Health Care, Materials and Energy were modest detractors for the year. Telecommunication Services was neutral to relative results in the year, and the Portfolio continued to avoid owning telecom services giant AT&T, Inc., which was penalized late in the year by investors for its ill-fated bid for T-Mobile and Verizon Communications, Inc.

Despite posting the lowest absolute performance for the year, the Financials sector added the most to relative performance in the year. In addition to avoiding a number of low quality large index-weighted stocks such as Bank of America Corp., Citigroup, Inc. and Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., the Portfolio benefited from a number of active positions. Similar to Visa and MasterCard, Discover Financial Services

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio

Managed by Rainier Investment Management, Inc.

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

outperformed. We sold the position in Discover after the stock hit our price target, but continue to maintain positions in Visa and MasterCard. American Tower Corp., a tower company for cell phone base-stations, continued to benefit from the build-out of wireless networks by cell phone providers.

Changes in the Portfolio throughout the year included boosting the exposure to Health Care with Cooper Cos. and Celgene Corp., increasing the Consumer Staples weight by adding Kraft Foods Inc. and Hansen Natural Corp. and increasing the weight in the Utilities sector. We also added Financials companies Invesco Ltd.—an asset manager—and Fifth Third Bancorp., and purchased five new Materials stocks: Monsanto Co., Ecolab Inc., Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc., Airgas Inc. and Allegheny Technologies Inc. Sector reductions were primarily in Consumer Discretionary and Industrials. These changes continued to position the Portfolio toward companies that have more visible and somewhat less cyclical revenue growth which we believe will generate above sector-average earnings growth even in a very slow global economic growth environment.

We will continue to emphasize companies that can grow their earnings at above sector-average rates over a sustainable period, and purchase them at attractive prices. Of greater importance to us is the free cash flow that gives a company the capacity to pay a dividend rather than the absolute dividend. We generally prefer to own the stock of companies that invest their free cash flow into existing or related businesses as a way to fuel future growth.

Senior Equity Portfolio Managers

Daniel M. Brewer, CFA

Mark W. Broughton, CFA

Stacie L. Cowell, CFA

Mark H. Dawson, CFA

Andrea L. Durbin, CFA

Michael Emery, CFA

James R. Margard, CFA

Peter M. Musser, CFA

Carlee J. Price, CFA

Rainier Investment Management, Inc.

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Chevron Corp.		4.4
Apple, Inc.		4.3
Kraft Foods, Inc. - Class A		2.4
JPMorgan Chase & Co.		2.2
Precision Castparts Corp.		2.1
CSX Corp.		2.0
Google, Inc. - Class A		1.9
Coca-Cola Co. (The)		1.9
QUALCOMM, Inc.		1.8
Allergan, Inc.		1.7

Top Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Non-Cyclical		19.5
Technology		15.0
Financials		12.4
Industrials		11.2
Energy		10.4
Cyclical		9.0
Communications		8.6
Basic Materials		6.0
Cash & Cash Equivalents		4.5
Utilities		3.4

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio

Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio managed by

Rainier Investment Management, Inc. vs. Russell 1000 Index¹ and Russell 1000 Growth Index²

	Average Annual Return3 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		Since Inception4
Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio—Class A		-3.54%		-5.06%
Class B		-3.84%		-5.31%
Russell 1000 Index1		1.50%		-2.54%
Russell 1000 Growth Index2		2.64%		-0.70%

The performance of Class B shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other class of shares because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹The Russell 1000 Index is an unmanaged measure of the 1,000 largest companies in the Russell 3000 Index, which represents approximately 90% of the investable U.S. equity market.

²The Russell 1000 Growth Index is an unmanaged measure of performance of the largest capitalized U.S. companies, within the Russell 1000 companies, that have higher price-to-book ratios and forecasted growth values.

³“Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gains distributions.

⁴Inception of Class A and Class B shares is 11/1/2007. Index returns are based on an inception date of 11/1/2007.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The indexes do not include fees or expenses and are not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A
Actual		0.70%	$	1,000.00	$	919.70	$	3.39
Hypothetical*		0.70%		1,000.00		1,021.67		3.57
Class B
Actual		0.95%	$	1,000.00	$	917.20	$	4.59
Hypothetical*		0.95%		1,000.00		1,020.41		4.84

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—95.7% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—2.8%
BE Aerospace, Inc.*		156,970	$	6,076,309
Precision Castparts Corp.		103,060		16,983,257
				23,059,566
Air Freight & Logistics—0.9%
Expeditors International of Washington, Inc.		178,460		7,309,722
Auto Components—0.7%
BorgWarner, Inc.* (a)		85,620		5,457,419
Beverages—3.4%
Coca-Cola Co. (The)		217,340		15,207,280
Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc.		181,160		4,670,305
Hansen Natural Corp.*		85,560		7,883,498
				27,761,083
Biotechnology—2.4%
Biogen Idec, Inc.*		64,220		7,067,411
Celgene Corp.*		187,500		12,675,000
				19,742,411
Capital Markets—3.2%
Affiliated Managers Group, Inc.*		75,100		7,205,845
Ameriprise Financial, Inc.		190,680		9,465,355
Invesco, Ltd.		469,620		9,434,666
				26,105,866
Chemicals—4.3%
Airgas, Inc.		52,700		4,114,816
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.		223,080		10,212,603
Ecolab, Inc.		120,810		6,984,026
Monsanto Co.		117,620		8,241,633
Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan, Inc.		141,400		5,836,992
				35,390,070
Commercial Banks—2.7%
Fifth Third Bancorp.		806,850		10,263,132
PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.		201,190		11,602,627
				21,865,759
Communications Equipment—2.2%
F5 Networks, Inc.*		32,510		3,449,961
QUALCOMM, Inc.		265,110		14,501,517
				17,951,478
Computers & Peripherals—5.9%
Apple, Inc.*		86,705		35,115,525
Computers & Peripherals—(Continued)
EMC Corp.*		600,885	$	12,943,063
				48,058,588
Construction & Engineering—0.6%
Fluor Corp.		94,480		4,747,620
Consumer Finance—1.7%
American Express Co.		288,440		13,605,715
Diversified Financial Services—3.2%
IntercontinentalExchange, Inc.*		71,870		8,663,929
JPMorgan Chase & Co.		531,325		17,666,556
				26,330,485
Electric Utilities—0.9%
ITC Holdings Corp.		93,070		7,062,152
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—0.6%
Trimble Navigation, Ltd.*		114,070		4,950,638
Energy Equipment & Services—3.6%
Baker Hughes, Inc.		191,390		9,309,210
Ensco plc (ADR)		150,970		7,083,512
Schlumberger, Ltd.		194,520		13,287,661
				29,680,383
Food & Staples Retailing—1.5%
Costco Wholesale Corp.		142,750		11,893,930
Food Products—2.4%
Kraft Foods, Inc.—Class A		519,440		19,406,278
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—1.4%
Cooper Cos., Inc. (The)		120,780		8,517,406
Intuitive Surgical, Inc.*		5,440		2,518,774
				11,036,180
Health Care Providers & Services—3.1%
CIGNA Corp.		150,780		6,332,760
Express Scripts, Inc.*		193,290		8,638,130
McKesson Corp.		131,730		10,263,084
				25,233,974
Health Care Technology—0.9%
Cerner Corp.*		115,890		7,098,262
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—1.1%
McDonald’s Corp.		93,320		9,362,796

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Household Products—0.5%
Church & Dwight Co., Inc. (a)		83,990	$	3,843,382
Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders—0.5%
AES Corp. (The)*		366,910		4,344,214
Internet & Catalog Retail—1.5%
Amazon.com, Inc.*		46,760		8,094,156
Priceline.com, Inc.*		9,070		4,242,130
				12,336,286
Internet Software & Services—1.9%
Google, Inc.—Class A*		24,385		15,750,271
IT Services—3.6%
Accenture plc—Class A		189,630		10,094,005
MasterCard, Inc.—Class A		20,430		7,616,713
Visa, Inc.—Class A		114,034		11,577,872
				29,288,590
Life Sciences Tools & Services—0.8%
Agilent Technologies, Inc.*		178,550		6,236,752
Machinery—3.6%
Eaton Corp.		255,780		11,134,103
Gardner Denver, Inc.		94,950		7,316,847
Joy Global, Inc.		144,380		10,824,169
				29,275,119
Media—0.8%
DIRECTV—Class A*		144,140		6,163,426
Metals & Mining—1.7%
Allegheny Technologies, Inc.		82,840		3,959,752
Yamana Gold, Inc. (a)		666,510		9,791,032
				13,750,784
Multi-Utilities—2.0%
NiSource, Inc. (a)		270,190		6,433,224
Xcel Energy, Inc.		358,900		9,919,996
				16,353,220
Multiline Retail—1.0%
Macy’s, Inc.		260,250		8,374,845
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—6.7%
Anadarko Petroleum Corp.		75,310		5,748,412
Chevron Corp.		334,115		35,549,836
Noble Energy, Inc.		78,360		7,396,401
SM Energy Co. (a)		85,040		6,216,424
				54,911,073
Personal Products—0.8%
Estee Lauder Cos., Inc. (The)—Class A		55,890	$	6,277,565
Pharmaceuticals—4.6%
Allergan, Inc.		161,445		14,165,184
Merck & Co., Inc.		168,460		6,350,942
Perrigo Co. (a)		91,050		8,859,165
Shire plc (ADR)		81,650		8,483,435
				37,858,726
Professional Services—0.3%
Verisk Analytics, Inc.—Class A*		61,360		2,462,377
Real Estate Investment Trusts—1.7%
American Tower Corp.—Class A		225,430		13,528,054
Real Estate Management & Development—0.9%
CBRE Group, Inc*		455,790		6,937,124
Road & Rail—2.0%
CSX Corp.		759,490		15,994,859
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—1.8%
Altera Corp.		165,810		6,151,551
Avago Technologies, Ltd.		292,100		8,430,006
				14,581,557
Software—4.8%
Autodesk, Inc.*		192,750		5,846,108
Check Point Software Technologies, Ltd.*		85,810		4,508,457
Citrix Systems, Inc.*		56,040		3,402,749
Informatica Corp.*		121,960		4,503,983
Intuit, Inc.		179,890		9,460,415
Oracle Corp.		318,945		8,180,939
Rovi Corp.*		140,190		3,445,870
				39,348,521
Specialty Retail—1.6%
Abercrombie & Fitch Co.—Class A		110,230		5,383,633
Limited Brands, Inc.		186,950		7,543,433
				12,927,066
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—3.1%
Coach, Inc.		144,240		8,804,409
NIKE, Inc.—Class B		107,505		10,360,257
Ralph Lauren Corp.		45,610		6,297,829
				25,462,495
Total Common Stocks (Cost $726,544,301)				779,116,681

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Short-Term Investments—7.9%

Security Description	Shares/Par Amount		Value
Mutual Funds—3.3%
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (b)		27,271,352	$	27,271,352
Repurchase Agreement—4.6%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $37,205,041 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $11,070,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. at 4.500% due 01/15/14 with a value of $12,190,838; by $25,280,000 U.S. Treasury Note at 1.000% due 01/15/14 with a value of $25,760,775.	$	37,205,000		37,205,000
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $64,476,352)				64,476,352
Total Investments—103.6% (Cost $791,020,653#)				843,593,033
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(3.6)%				(29,542,437	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	814,050,596

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $794,477,284. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $89,183,210 and $(40,067,461), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $49,115,749 for federal income tax purposes.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities loaned was $30,137,827 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $27,271,352 and non-cash collateral with a value of $3,753,327. The cash collateral is invested in a money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The non-cash collateral received consists primarily of government securities and bank letters of credit, and are held for the benefit of the Portfolio at the Portfolio’s custodian. The Portfolio cannot repledge or resell this collateral. As such, this collateral is excluded from the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

(b) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities lending transactions.

(ADR)— An American Depositary Receipt is a certificate issued by a custodian bank representing the right to receive securities of the foreign issuer described. Trading on exchanges not located in the United States or Canada significantly influences the value of ADRs.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Total Common Stocks*	$	779,116,681	$	—	$	—	$	779,116,681
Short-Term Investments
Mutual Funds		27,271,352		—		—		27,271,352
Repurchase Agreement		—		37,205,000		—		37,205,000
Total Short-Term Investments		27,271,352		37,205,000		—		64,476,352
Total Investments	$	806,388,033	$	37,205,000	$	—	$	843,593,033

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)(b)	$	806,388,033
Repurchase Agreement		37,205,000
Cash		355
Receivable for investments sold		1,533,717
Receivable for shares sold		67,035
Dividends receivable		660,927
Total assets		845,855,067
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		3,960,576
Shares redeemed		25,153
Collateral for securities loaned		27,271,352
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		459,330
Distribution and service fees - Class B		14,273
Administration fees		3,592
Custodian and accounting fees		5,783
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		39,345
Total liabilities		31,804,471
Net Assets	$	814,050,596
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	842,531,182
Accumulated net realized loss		(84,877,763	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments		52,572,380
Undistributed net investment income		3,824,797
Net Assets	$	814,050,596
Net Assets
Class A	$	747,091,322
Class B		66,959,274
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		95,931,156
Class B		8,634,690
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	7.79
Class B		7.75

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreement, was $753,815,653.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $30,137,827.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	10,528,052
Interest (b)		92,701
Total investment income		10,620,753
Expenses
Management fees		6,253,376
Administration fees		49,225
Custodian and accounting fees		79,997
Distribution and service fees - Class B		159,875
Audit and tax services		33,061
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Shareholder reporting		28,958
Insurance		5,605
Miscellaneous		14,322
Total expenses		6,693,129
Less broker commission recapture		(13,804	)
Net expenses		6,679,325
Net investment income		3,941,428
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments and Futures Contracts
Net realized gain on:
Investments		131,894,754
Futures contracts		2,603,285
Net realized gain on investments and futures contracts		134,498,039
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments		(144,439,376	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments and futures contracts		(9,941,337	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(5,999,909	)

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $55,421.

(b) Includes net income on securities loaned of $88,927.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	3,941,428		$	6,696,975
Net realized gain on investments and futures contracts		134,498,039			63,432,824
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments		(144,439,376	)		81,937,899
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations		(5,999,909	)		152,067,698
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(6,345,345	)		(5,896,956	)
Class B		(245,701	)		(180,082	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(6,591,046	)		(6,077,038	)
Net increase (decrease) in net assets from capital share transactions		(302,918,234	)		55,687,648
Net Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets		(315,509,189	)		201,678,308
Net assets at beginning of period		1,129,559,785			927,881,477
Net assets at end of period	$	814,050,596		$	1,129,559,785
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	3,824,797		$	6,658,270

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		35,051,829		$	302,501,543			16,106,217		$	115,579,275
Reinvestments		736,119			6,345,345			776,938			5,896,956
Redemptions		(71,431,049	)		(619,623,658	)		(10,647,218	)		(77,505,877	)
Net increase (decrease)		(35,643,101	)	$	(310,776,770	)		6,235,937		$	43,970,354
Class B
Sales		5,461,892		$	43,664,932			3,672,002		$	27,549,585
Reinvestments		28,570			245,701			23,757			180,082
Redemptions		(4,439,086	)		(36,052,097	)		(2,204,775	)		(16,012,373	)
Net increase		1,051,376		$	7,858,536			1,490,984		$	11,717,294
Increase (decrease) derived from capital shares transactions				$	(302,918,234	)				$	55,687,648

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	8.12		$	7.06		$	5.77		$	10.00		$	10.00
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.04			0.05			0.05			0.07			0.01
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.32	)		1.06			1.30			(4.20	)		0.00	++
Total from investment operations		(0.28	)		1.11			1.35			(4.13	)		0.01
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.05	)		(0.05	)		(0.06	)		0.00			(0.01	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.10	)		0.00
Total distributions		(0.05	)		(0.05	)		(0.06	)		(0.10	)		(0.01	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	7.79		$	8.12		$	7.06		$	5.77		$	10.00
Total Return (%)		(3.54	)		15.70			23.68			(41.70	)		0.09
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.69			0.69			0.70			0.70			0.75	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)		0.69			0.69			0.70			0.69			0.75	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.43			0.71			0.86			0.85			0.71	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		87.6			84.3			91.3			97.5			11.2
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	747.1		$	1,068.2		$	885.0		$	519.8		$	771.8

	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007(b)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	8.09		$	7.04		$	5.76		$	10.00		$	10.00
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.02			0.03			0.04			0.05			0.00	+
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.33	)		1.05			1.29			(4.19	)		0.01
Total from investment operations		(0.31	)		1.08			1.33			(4.14	)		0.01
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.03	)		(0.03	)		(0.05	)		0.00			(0.01	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.10	)		0.00
Total distributions		(0.03	)		(0.03	)		(0.05	)		(0.10	)		(0.01	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	7.75		$	8.09		$	7.04		$	5.76		$	10.00
Total Return (%)		(3.84	)		15.38			23.25			(41.80	)		0.07
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.94			0.94			0.95			0.96			1.04	*
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(c)		0.94			0.94			0.95			0.94			1.02	*
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.23			0.46			0.61			0.63			0.27	*
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		87.6			84.3			91.3			97.5			11.2
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	67.0		$	61.4		$	42.9		$	30.5		$	8.0

* Annualized.

+ Net investment income was less than $0.01.

++ Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments was less than $0.01.

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Commencement of operations was 11/1/2007.

(c) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A and B Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to broker commission recapture, deferred trustees’ compensation, capital loss carryforwards and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Securities Lending - The Portfolio may lend its portfolio securities to certain qualified brokers who borrow securities in order to complete certain securities transactions. By lending its portfolio securities, the Portfolio attempts to increase its net investment income through the receipt of income on the loaned securities. Any gain or loss in the market price of the loaned securities that might occur and any interest earned or dividends declared during the term of the loan would accrue to the account of the Portfolio.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

The Trust has entered into a securities lending arrangement with the custodian, State Street Bank and Trust Company (the “custodian”). Under this arrangement, the custodian is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral at least equal to 102% of the market value of the loaned securities (105% for foreign equity securities), at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities must be maintained for the duration of the loan. Cash collateral is generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The Navigator Portfolio is a registered money market fund which invests in a variety of high quality U.S. dollar-denominated instruments. If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower shall be required to deliver, by the close of business on the following business day, an additional amount of collateral so that the total amount of posted collateral equals at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of net income (income after the deduction of expenses and fees of the Navigator Portfolio) on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the custodian and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by U.S. Treasuries, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the custodian. The risks associated with lending portfolio securities include, but are not limited to, possible delays in receiving additional collateral or in the recovery of the loaned securities, possible loss of rights in the collateral should the borrower fail financially, as well as risk of loss in the value of the collateral or the value of the investments made with the collateral. Net interest income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2011 is disclosed in the footnotes to the Statement of Operations. Any outstanding loans by the Portfolio at December 31, 2011 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

Directed Brokerage Agreement - The Trust has entered into a directed brokerage arrangement with State Street Global Markets (“SSGM”). Under this arrangement, the Portfolio directs certain trades to SSGM in return for a recapture credit. SSGM issues a cash rebate to the Portfolio. Amounts paid to the Portfolio are shown separately as broker commission recapture on the Statement of Operations of the Portfolio. Additionally, these amounts have been excluded from the calculation of the ratio of net expenses to average net assets presented in the Financial Highlights for each share class.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with Rainier Investment Management, Inc. (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$6,253,376		0.700	%	First $150 Million
		0.675	%	$150 Million to $300 Million
		0.650	%	$300 Million to $1 Billion
		0.600	%	Over $1 Billion

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Distribution Agreement and Plan - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A and Class B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B distribution plan provides that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B Shares. However, under the Class B distribution agreement, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B distribution plan are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B distribution plan and distribution agreement, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. as designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$—	$	797,515,184	$	—	$	1,102,106,784

During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio engaged in security sale transactions with other affiliated portfolios. These sale transactions amounted to $143,542,845 and resulted in a realized gain of $33,889,044.

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments

Futures Contracts - The Portfolio may buy and sell futures contracts (on recognized exchanges) as a hedge, to maintain investment exposure to a target asset class or to enhance return. The Portfolio may be subject to fluctuations in equity prices, interest rates, commodity prices and foreign currency exchange rates in the normal course of pursuing its investment objective. Futures contracts are standardized agreements to buy or sell a security, or deliver a final cash settlement price in connection with an index, interest rate, currency, or other asset. The Portfolio must deposit an amount (“initial margin”) equal to a certain percentage of the face value of the futures contract. The initial margin may be in the form of cash or securities which is returned when the Portfolio’s obligations under the contract have been satisfied. If cash is deposited as the initial margin, it is shown as “restricted cash” on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Futures contracts are marked-to-market daily and subsequent payments (“variation margin”) are made or received by the Portfolio depending on the daily fluctuations in the value of the futures contracts. These amounts are reflected as receivables or payables on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Risks of entering into futures contracts (and related options) include the possibility that the market for these instruments may be illiquid and that a change in the value of the contract or option may not correlate perfectly with changes in the value of the underlying instrument. Futures contracts are exchange traded and the exchange’s clearinghouse, as counterparty to all exchange traded futures, guarantees the futures contracts against default.

During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio entered into equity index futures contracts which were subject to equity price risk. During the period April 26 through April 28, 2011, the Portfolio had bought and sold $201,449,142 in equity index futures contracts. At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not have any open futures contracts. For the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had realized gains in the amount of $2,603,285 which are shown under Net realized gain on futures contracts in the Statement of Operations.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

7. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$6,591,046	$	6,077,038	$	—	$	—	$	6,591,046	$	6,077,038

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards and Post October Loss Deferrals			Total
$3,849,864	$	—	$	49,115,745	$	(81,421,128	)	$	(28,455,519	)

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses.

As of December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and the pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards expiring on December 31, 2017 were $81,421,128.

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements - continued

processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the periods presented, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 23, 2012

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the one- and three- year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Russell 1000 Index, for the one- and three- year periods ended September 30, 2011. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance, including the impact of current market conditions on the Sub-Adviser’s investment style and any actions taken to address the Portfolio’s performance. The Board noted the continued monitoring of the Portfolio. The Board also took into consideration that the Portfolio commenced operations on November 1, 2007, at the outset of the recent severe economic downturn. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s underperformance was being reasonably addressed and/or monitored.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the Expense Group median, the Expense Universe median, and the Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were above the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Adviser had recently negotiated a reduction to the Portfolio’s sub-advisory fee schedule and that the Adviser agreed to waive a corresponding portion of its advisory fee in order for shareholders to benefit from the sub-advisory fee reduction effective January 1, 2012. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

With respect to the Rainier Large Cap Equity Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee and sub-advisory fee each contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s management fees are above the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

25

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust RCM Technology Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

RCM Technology Portfolio

Managed by RCM Capital Management LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A, B, and E shares of the RCM Technology Portfolio returned -9.80%, -9.89%, and -9.98%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmarks, the NASDAQ Composite Index¹ and the S&P North American Technology Sector Index², returned -1.80% and -0.88%, respectively.

Market Environment/Conditions

The stock market was quite volatile during most of the 2011 calendar year and volatility spiked during the third quarter. A proxy for investor fear, the Chicago Board Options Exchange (‘CBOE’) Volatility Index, or VIX, rose 50% to 48 on August 8th after being below 20 for most of the year, and continued to stay below 30 towards the end of the year. Several macro factors contributed to the rise in volatility and the overall market decline.

Stocks jumped higher in October, driven by hopes of a resolution to the European debt crisis and a batch of better than expected U.S. economic reports. Earnings results for the third quarter for many technology companies were better than feared and many companies met expectations.

The calendar year began as stocks sold off late in the fourth quarter of 2010, and this stock sell-off continued early in the first quarter of 2011. Stocks then rallied on strong earnings results but then in early May 2011, many investors took profits and reduced their holdings in the more volatile companies. Chinese stocks were weak from announcements from the Chinese government that reserve requirements would be raised again and from governance issues associated with Yahoo’s holding in Alibaba Group, and by the discovery of fraud at banking software vendor Longtop Financial Technologies. As June 2011 ended, there was a strong rally in technology stocks, as the possibility that Greece would default on its sovereign debt decreased and fear of double recession in the U.S. subsided. However, a market crisis during the third quarter of 2011 erased most of the gains of the year, as the S&P 500 Index fell nearly 14%, the S&P North America Technology Sector Index fell over 10%, and the Russell 1000 Technology Sector Index fell over 8%. Investors worried about the widening sovereign debt crisis in Europe, a possible double-dip recession in the U.S., and a potential hard landing in China.

The market then sold off in November and through the end of the year, as concerns about Europe again reappeared. In late December, Oracle’s disappointing quarterly results spurred a sell-off in the entire technology sector.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

The RCM Technology Portfolio underperformed both the S&P North America Technology Sector Index and the NASDAQ Composite Index during the calendar year 2011. The Portfolio struggled during the year as both stock selection and allocation detracted from performance. Stock selection was negative in all six subsectors of technology; however, this was partially offset by the Portfolio’s allocation to internet software & services and IT services.

The top active contributor to performance came from the Portfolio not owning shares of Research In Motion, as the stock was down 75% during the year. TIBCO Software and Samsung Electronics were also top contributors. TIBCO continues to execute well with strong product momentum as a provider of infrastructure in cloud computing. Samsung continues to have strong sales momentum globally, mainly due to its promising Galaxy mobile handset models.

Pressure on holdings such as Hewlett-Packard and Skyworks Solutions were top absolute detractors to the Portfolio’s returns, although the Portfolio’s underweight to Hewlett-Packard made it an active contributor to performance. Skyworks Solutions generates most of its revenue from the handset industry, which experienced a difficult second quarter, as Research In Motion and Nokia lowered their second quarter guidance. Salesforce.com was also hit hard during the later part of 2011, as the company’s third quarter results confused investors causing the stock to decline. Finally, a Chinese holding, Longtop Financial Technologies, was a top detractor to relative returns, as fraud was discovered at the banking software vendor.

During the year, style was the primary driver of the Portfolio’s performance, which was hit hard during this stock market crisis, particularly during the third quarter. We seek to identify future winners in high-growth technology companies. The Portfolio is thus underweight in mega cap names, which tend to do well in difficult markets, and though we trimmed the mid cap names in Q3, they significantly lagged the S&P North American Technology Sector Index² and performance suffered.

We have increased the Portfolio’s holdings in some of the larger cap companies that are experiencing a product cycle improvement or a management change, such as Microsoft Corp, IBM, and Hewlett-Packard. We still have a significant part of the Portfolio in mid cap companies and have maintained the Portfolio’s exposure to China, particularly in internet companies Baidu Inc., Netease.com, and Sina Corp., though we have trimmed back a bit. We have about 20% of the Portfolio in stocks associated with cloud computing, which includes internet and software companies, such as Amazon.com, Salesforce.com, Oracle Corp, and TIBCO Software. However, to the extent that investors value yield and cash over growth, we believe the Portfolio will be disadvantaged relative to its benchmarks due to the Portfolio’s lower exposure to large cap names.

We have positioned the Portfolio to hold companies we expect to benefit from the continued positive growth in many sub-segments of Technology, especially in companies that provide solutions to save money or enable companies to improve their relationships with their customers and revenue growth. Some of our themes include: inexpensive smart phones outside of the U.S., wireless services including games and social networks, a new category of software for customer interaction, software-as-a-service, e-commerce, a new energy infrastructure, the growing use of information technology in health care, and more efficient transportation, including electric cars.

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

RCM Technology Portfolio

Managed by RCM Capital Management LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

Walter C. Price, Jr., CFA Managing Director, Senior Analyst, Portfolio Manager

Huachen Chen, CFA Senior Portfolio Manager RCM Capital Management LLC

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Apple, Inc.		10.6
Microsoft Corp.		8.5
Google, Inc. - Class A		4.9
Cisco Systems, Inc.		4.7
Hewlett-Packard Co.		4.3
Oracle Corp.		4.3
QUALCOMM, Inc.		4.1
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (GDR)		3.7
Intuit, Inc.		3.5
Intel Corp.		3.1

Top Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Technology		58.4
Communications		27.1
Cash & Cash Equivalents		5.7
Non-Cyclical		4.0
Industrials		3.3
Cyclical		0.8
Basic Materials		0.7

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

RCM Technology Portfolio

RCM Technology Portfolio managed by

RCM Capital Management LLC vs. NASDAQ Composite Index¹ and S&P North American Technology Sector

Index²

	Average Annual Return3 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year
RCM Technology Portfolio—Class A		-9.80%		6.21%		1.72%
Class B		-9.89%		5.97%		1.50%
Class E		-9.98%		6.06%		1.59%
NASDAQ Composite Index1		-1.80%		1.52%		2.94%
S&P North American Technology Sector Index2		-0.88%		3.84%		2.44%

The performance of Class B shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹ The NASDAQ Composite Index is a market-value weighted index of all common stocks listed on NASDAQ.

² The S&P North American Technology Sector Index™ is an unmanaged index providing investors with a suite of equity benchmarks for U.S. traded technology-related securities.

³ “Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The indexes do not include fees or expenses and are not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

RCM Technology Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A
Actual		0.96%	$	1,000.00	$	856.60	$	4.49
Hypothetical*		0.96%		1,000.00		1,020.36		4.89
Class B
Actual		1.21%	$	1,000.00	$	856.00	$	5.66
Hypothetical*		1.21%		1,000.00		1,019.10		6.16
Class E
Actual		1.11%	$	1,000.00	$	854.00	$	5.19
Hypothetical*		1.11%		1,000.00		1,019.60		5.65

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

RCM Technology Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—92.9% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Automobiles—0.8%
Tesla Motors, Inc.* (a)		89,832	$	2,565,602
Chemicals—0.7%
Monsanto Co.		32,730		2,293,391
Communications Equipment—11.1%
ADTRAN, Inc. (a)		178,622		5,387,240
Cisco Systems, Inc.		832,891		15,058,669
Motorola Solutions, Inc.		41,350		1,914,092
QUALCOMM, Inc.		238,875		13,066,462
				35,426,463
Computers & Peripherals—17.9%
Apple, Inc.*		83,640		33,874,200
Catcher Technology Co., Ltd. (GDR)		48,460		1,124,030
EMC Corp.*		128,419		2,766,145
Hewlett-Packard Co.		542,182		13,966,608
SanDisk Corp.*		116,070		5,711,805
				57,442,788
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—2.9%
Hitachi, Ltd. (a)		1,746,000		9,149,396
Health Care Technology—1.0%
athenahealth, Inc.* (a)		64,424		3,164,507
Internet & Catalog Retail—1.2%
Amazon.com, Inc.*		15,580		2,696,898
Priceline.com, Inc.*		2,726		1,274,978
				3,971,876
Internet Software & Services—12.6%
Akamai Technologies, Inc.*		118,614		3,828,860
Baidu, Inc. (ADR)*		41,584		4,843,288
eBay, Inc.*		83,625		2,536,346
Google, Inc.—Class A*		24,395		15,756,731
NetEase.com, Inc. (ADR)*		67,645		3,033,878
Phoenix New Media, Ltd. (ADR)* (a)		116,447		649,774
Rackspace Hosting, Inc.* (a)		109,173		4,695,531
Renren, Inc. (ADR)* (a)		1,264		4,487
SINA Corp.*		46,286		2,406,872
Yahoo!, Inc.*		169,220		2,729,519
				40,485,286
IT Services—11.7%
Automatic Data Processing, Inc.		73,680		3,979,457
IT Services—(Continued)
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp.—Class A*		130,635	$	8,401,137
International Business Machines Corp.		51,890		9,541,533
MasterCard, Inc.—Class A		16,220		6,047,140
Paychex, Inc.		42,495		1,279,524
Visa, Inc.—Class A		81,665		8,291,448
				37,540,239
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—10.4%
Analog Devices, Inc.		83,665		2,993,534
ASML Holding N.V.		35,040		1,464,321
Intel Corp.		406,745		9,863,566
Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.		38,195		994,598
Microchip Technology, Inc.		27,690		1,014,285
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (GDR) (London exchange)		1,175		539,377
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (GDR) (U.S. exchange)		25,905		11,934,433
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (ADR)		202,389		2,612,842
Texas Instruments, Inc.		66,626		1,939,483
				33,356,439
Software—22.6%
Activision Blizzard, Inc.		107,644		1,326,174
Ariba, Inc.* (a)		92,125		2,586,870
Intuit, Inc.		214,882		11,300,644
Microsoft Corp.		1,049,403		27,242,502
Nuance Communications, Inc.* (a)		129,360		3,254,698
Oracle Corp.		530,470		13,606,555
QLIK Technologies, Inc.*		58,511		1,415,966
Salesforce.com, Inc.* (a)		59,147		6,001,055
TIBCO Software, Inc.*		240,167		5,742,393
				72,476,857
Total Common Stocks (Cost $296,333,823)				297,872,844
Short-Term Investments—10.3%
Mutual Funds—4.6%
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (b)		14,861,551		14,861,551

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

RCM Technology Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Short-Term Investments—(Continued)

Security Description	Par Amount		Value
Repurchase Agreement—5.7%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $18,092,020 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $18,480,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. at 0.625% due 12/23/13 with a value of $18,456,900.	$	18,092,000	$	18,092,000
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $32,953,551)				32,953,551
Total Investments—103.2% (Cost $329,287,374#)				330,826,395
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(3.2)%				(10,347,018	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	320,479,377

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $332,213,530. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $11,998,545 and $(13,385,680), respectively, resulting in net unrealized depreciation of $(1,387,135) for federal income tax purposes.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities loaned was $14,398,649 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $14,861,551. The cash collateral is invested in a money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian.

(b) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities lending transactions.

(ADR)— An American Depositary Receipt is a certificate issued by a custodian bank representing the right to receive securities of the foreign issuer described. Trading on exchanges not located in the United States or Canada significantly influences the value of ADRs.

(GDR)— A Global Depositary Receipt is a negotiable certificate issued by one country’s bank against a certain number of shares of a company’s stock held in its custody but traded on the stock exchange of another country.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

RCM Technology Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Common Stocks
Automobiles	$	2,565,602	$	—	$	—	$	2,565,602
Chemicals		2,293,391		—		—		2,293,391
Communications Equipment		35,426,463		—		—		35,426,463
Computers & Peripherals		57,442,788		—		—		57,442,788
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components		—		9,149,396		—		9,149,396
Health Care Technology		3,164,507		—		—		3,164,507
Internet & Catalog Retail		3,971,876		—		—		3,971,876
Internet Software & Services		40,485,286		—		—		40,485,286
IT Services		37,540,239		—		—		37,540,239
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment		32,817,062		539,377		—		33,356,439
Software		72,476,857		—		—		72,476,857
Total Common Stocks		288,184,071		9,688,773		—		297,872,844
Short-Term Investments
Mutual Funds		14,861,551		—		—		14,861,551
Repurchase Agreement		—		18,092,000		—		18,092,000
Total Short-Term Investments		14,861,551		18,092,000		—		32,953,551
Total Investments	$	303,045,622	$	27,780,773	$	—	$	330,826,395

Following is a reconciliation of Level 3 assets for which significant unobservable inputs were used to determine fair value:

Investments in Securities	Balance as of December 31, 2010		Realized Gain		Change in Unrealized (Depreciation)			Sales			Balance as of December 31, 2011		Change in Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation) for Investments Still Held at December 31, 2011
Common Stocks
Capital Markets	$	90,861	$	5,461	$	(12,543	)	$	(83,779	)	$	—	$	—

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

RCM Technology Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)(b)	$	312,734,395
Repurchase Agreement		18,092,000
Cash		359
Cash denominated in foreign currencies (c)		3,651,674
Receivable for investments sold		660,449
Receivable for shares sold		601,404
Dividends receivable		64,402
Total assets		335,804,683
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		31,058
Shares redeemed		40,076
Collateral for securities loaned		14,861,551
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		244,575
Distribution and service fees - Class B		53,116
Distribution and service fees - Class E		2,400
Administration fees		1,607
Custodian and accounting fees		3,781
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		62,075
Total liabilities		15,325,306
Net Assets	$	320,479,377
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	282,632,859
Accumulated net realized gain		37,281,769
Unrealized appreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		1,528,878
Accumulated net investment loss		(964,129	)
Net Assets	$	320,479,377
Net Assets
Class A	$	57,367,099
Class B		244,678,931
Class E		18,433,347
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		12,986,798
Class B		57,217,892
Class E		4,253,513
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	4.42
Class B		4.28
Class E		4.33

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreement, was $311,195,374.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $14,398,649.

(c) Identified cost of cash denominated in foreign currencies was $3,661,817.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	1,812,864
Interest (b)		213,620
Total investment income		2,026,484
Expenses
Management fees		3,217,659
Administration fees		21,272
Custodian and accounting fees		65,978
Distribution and service fees - Class B		682,892
Distribution and service fees - Class E		33,896
Audit and tax services		33,019
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Shareholder reporting		69,947
Insurance		1,866
Miscellaneous		5,857
Total expenses		4,201,096
Less broker commission recapture		(101,362	)
Net expenses		4,099,734
Net investment loss		(2,073,250	)
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments and Foreign Currency Transactions
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments		44,995,535
Foreign currency transactions		(34,486	)
Net realized gain on investments and foreign currency transactions		44,961,049
Net change in unrealized depreciation on:
Investments		(82,058,955	)
Foreign currency transactions		(10,158	)
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		(82,069,113	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments and foreign currency transactions		(37,108,064	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(39,181,314	)

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $63,292.

(b) Includes net income on securities loaned of $211,409.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

RCM Technology Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment loss	$	(2,073,250	)	$	(1,980,088	)
Net realized gain on investments and foreign currency transactions		44,961,049			33,699,738
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments and foreign currency transactions		(82,069,113	)		40,319,792
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations		(39,181,314	)		72,039,442
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		14,909,178			21,745,916
Net Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets		(24,272,136	)		93,785,358
Net assets at beginning of period		344,751,513			250,966,155
Net assets at end of period	$	320,479,377		$	344,751,513
Accumulated net investment loss at end of period	$	(964,129	)	$	(1,663,783	)

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		4,104,842		$	20,367,350			5,539,350		$	23,137,398
Redemptions		(6,292,331	)		(31,172,181	)		(5,503,462	)		(21,946,271	)
Net increase (decrease)		(2,187,489	)	$	(10,804,831	)		35,888		$	1,191,127
Class B
Sales		18,469,617		$	89,960,233			19,716,529		$	78,480,144
Fund subscription in kind (a)		2,528,602			13,300,445			—			—
Redemptions		(15,570,648	)		(73,833,172	)		(14,598,524	)		(57,255,573	)
Net increase		5,427,571		$	29,427,506			5,118,005		$	21,224,571
Class E
Sales		984,751		$	4,941,864			1,567,423		$	6,400,897
Redemptions		(1,764,150	)		(8,655,361	)		(1,801,642	)		(7,070,679	)
Net decrease		(779,399	)	$	(3,713,497	)		(234,219	)	$	(669,782	)
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	14,909,178					$	21,745,916

(a) Includes cash and securities amounting to $865,446 and $12,434,999, respectively. Securities were valued at market as of April 29, 2011.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

RCM Technology Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	4.90		$	3.82		$	2.40		$	6.82		$	5.39
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (loss)(a)		(0.02	)		(0.02	)		(0.00	)+		0.00	+		(0.01	)
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.46	)		1.10			1.42			(2.19	)		1.66
Total from investment operations		(0.48	)		1.08			1.42			(2.19	)		1.65
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.72	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(1.51	)		(0.22	)
Total distributions		0.00			0.00			0.00			(2.23	)		(0.22	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	4.42		$	4.90		$	3.82		$	2.40		$	6.82
Total Return (%)		(9.80	)		28.27			59.17			(44.25	)		31.67
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.95			0.97			0.96			0.97			0.97
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.95			0.97			0.96			0.95			0.95
Ratio of net investment income (loss) to average net assets (%)		(0.38	)		(0.52	)		(0.15	)		0.00	++		(0.20	)
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		172.1			160.6			138.2			181.1			206.8
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	57.4		$	74.3		$	57.8		$	31.0		$	64.8

	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	4.75		$	3.71		$	2.34		$	6.72		$	5.32
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment loss (a)		(0.03	)		(0.03	)		(0.01	)		(0.01	)		(0.03	)
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.44	)		1.07			1.38			(2.15	)		1.65
Total from investment operations		(0.47	)		1.04			1.37			(2.16	)		1.62
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.71	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(1.51	)		(0.22	)
Total distributions		0.00			0.00			0.00			(2.22	)		(0.22	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	4.28		$	4.75		$	3.71		$	2.34		$	6.72
Total Return (%)		(9.89	)		27.69			58.97			(44.45	)		31.52
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.20			1.22			1.21			1.22			1.27
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		1.20			1.22			1.21			1.20			1.24
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		(0.62	)		(0.77	)		(0.40	)		(0.25	)		(0.51	)
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		172.1			160.6			138.2			181.1			206.8
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	244.7		$	246.2		$	173.4		$	83.7		$	160.4

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

RCM Technology Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	4.81		$	3.76		$	2.36		$	6.76		$	5.34
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment loss (a)		(0.03	)		(0.03	)		(0.01	)		(0.01	)		(0.03	)
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.45	)		1.08			1.41			(2.16	)		1.67
Total from investment operations		(0.48	)		1.05			1.40			(2.17	)		1.64
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.72	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(1.51	)		(0.22	)
Total distributions		0.00			0.00			0.00			(2.23	)		(0.22	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	4.33		$	4.81		$	3.76		$	2.36		$	6.76
Total Return (%)		(9.98	)		27.93			59.32			(44.49	)		31.78
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.10			1.12			1.11			1.12			1.18
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		1.10			1.12			1.11			1.09			1.14
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		(0.53	)		(0.67	)		(0.29	)		(0.15	)		(0.42	)
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		172.1			160.6			138.2			181.1			206.8
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	18.4		$	24.2		$	19.8		$	11.2		$	27.1

+ Net investment income (loss) was less than $0.01/($0.01).

++ Ratio of net investment income (loss) to average net assets was less than 0.01%.

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

RCM Technology Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is RCM Technology Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A, B and E Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

RCM Technology Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to broker commission recapture, foreign currency transactions, passive foreign investment companies (PFICs), deferred trustees’ compensation, capital loss carryforwards and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Securities Lending - The Portfolio may lend its portfolio securities to certain qualified brokers who borrow securities in order to complete certain securities transactions. By lending its portfolio securities, the Portfolio attempts to increase its net investment income through the receipt of income on the loaned securities. Any gain or loss in the market price of the loaned securities that might occur and any interest earned or dividends declared during the term of the loan would accrue to the account of the Portfolio.

The Trust has entered into a securities lending arrangement with the custodian, State Street Bank and Trust Company (the “custodian”). Under this arrangement, the custodian is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral at least equal to 102% of the market value of the loaned

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

RCM Technology Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

securities (105% for foreign equity securities), at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities must be maintained for the duration of the loan. Cash collateral is generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The Navigator Portfolio is a registered money market fund which invests in a variety of high quality U.S. dollar-denominated instruments. If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower shall be required to deliver, by the close of business on the following business day, an additional amount of collateral so that the total amount of posted collateral equals at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of net income (income after the deduction of expenses and fees of the Navigator Portfolio) on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the custodian and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by U.S. Treasuries, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the custodian. The risks associated with lending portfolio securities include, but are not limited to, possible delays in receiving additional collateral or in the recovery of the loaned securities, possible loss of rights in the collateral should the borrower fail financially, as well as risk of loss in the value of the collateral or the value of the investments made with the collateral. Net interest income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2011 is disclosed in the footnotes to the Statement of Operations. Any outstanding loans by the Portfolio at December 31, 2011 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

Directed Brokerage Agreement - The Trust has entered into a directed brokerage arrangement with State Street Global Markets (“SSGM”). Under this arrangement, the Portfolio directs certain trades to SSGM in return for a recapture credit. SSGM issues a cash rebate to the Portfolio. Amounts paid to the Portfolio are shown separately as broker commission recapture on the Statement of Operations of the Portfolio. Additionally, these amounts have been excluded from the calculation of the ratio of net expenses to average net assets presented in the Financial Highlights for each share class.

Foreign Currency Translation - The books and records of the Portfolio are maintained in U.S. dollars. The values of securities, currencies and other assets and liabilities denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars are translated into U.S. dollars based upon foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period. Purchases and sales of investment securities, income and expenses are translated on the respective dates of such transactions. Since the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, it is not practical to isolate that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates from that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities. Such fluctuations are included in the net realized and unrealized gain or loss on investments.

Net realized foreign exchange gains or losses arise from activity in forward foreign currency exchange contracts, sales of foreign currency, currency gains or losses realized between the trade and settlement dates on securities transactions, and the difference between the amounts of dividends, interest, and foreign withholding taxes recorded by the Portfolio and the U.S. dollar equivalent of the amounts actually received or paid by the Portfolio. Gains and losses attributable to foreign currency exchange rates on sales of securities are recorded as Net realized gains and losses on investments. Net unrealized foreign exchange gains and losses arise from changes in the value of assets and liabilities, other than investment securities, resulting from changes in foreign exchange rates.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with RCM Capital Management LLC (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

RCM Technology Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$3,217,659		0.88	%	First $500 Million
		0.85	%	Over $500 Million

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Distribution Agreements and Plans - The Trust has distribution agreements with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A, Class B and Class E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B and Class E distribution plans provide that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% and 0.25%, respectively, of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B and Class E Shares. However, under the Class B and Class E distribution agreements, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B and Class E distribution plans are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% and 0.15% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares, respectively. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B and Class E distribution plans and distribution agreements, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B and Class E Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. as designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$—	$	595,526,118	$	—	$	598,086,102

5. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

RCM Technology Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk - continued

and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

7. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—

There were no distributions paid for the years ending December 31, 2011 and 2010.

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Depreciation			Loss Carryforwards		Total
$—	$	39,268,863	$	(1,397,278	)	$	—	$	37,871,585

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses. At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not have any capital loss carryforwards.

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

RCM Technology Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements - continued

related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

RCM Technology Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of RCM Technology Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of RCM Technology Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of RCM Technology Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 23, 2012

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

RCM Technology Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the RCM Technology Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

RCM Technology Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the RCM Technology Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the one-, three- and five-year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board also considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmarks, the NASDAQ Composite Index and the S&P North American Technology Sector Index, for the one- year period ended September 30, 2011, and outperformed its benchmarks for the three- and five- year periods ended September 30, 2011. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s overall performance was satisfactory.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

RCM Technology Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the RCM Technology Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees were equal to the Expense Group median, above the Expense Universe median, and below the Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board also considered that the Portfolio’s total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the Expense Group median, the Expense Universe median and Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were above the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s expenses. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

RCM Technology Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

With respect to the RCM Technology Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee and sub-advisory fee each contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board noted that the Portfolio had not yet reached the specified asset level at which a breakpoint to its contractual management fee would be triggered. The Board further considered that the Portfolio’s management fees were below the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

25

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust SSgA Growth and Income ETF Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth and Income ETF Portfolio

Managed by SSgA Funds Management, Inc.

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A, B, and E shares of the SSgA Growth and Income ETF Portfolio returned 1.28%, 1.06%, and 1.17%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the MSCI All Country World Index¹, returned -7.35%.

Market Environment/Conditions

2011 was characterized by significant volatility and frequent sentiment-shifting about how economic growth and debt concerns would impact different parts of the world. One of the ways in which the capital markets were perceived was that of a risk-on versus risk-off environment.

In some ways, signs of a risk-on versus risk-off mentality were relatively self-evident when looking back upon 2011 in the rear-view mirror. We witnessed periods of headline driven, macro-oriented price action in risky assets. The frustrating part was that the markets were driven by the same news and the same events —predominantly growth scares and Euro debt concerns —repeatedly throughout the year. After adding to these ignominiously recurrent themes global events such as an earthquake turned tsunami turned nuclear disaster in Japan, the killing of Osama bin Laden, and a U.S. credit rating downgrade, it became clear that there was no shortage of macro topics to instigate alarm in the markets.

However, the short term volatility in the markets and a focus on risk-on versus risk-off did not adequately describe the overall market atmosphere during 2011. Specifically, there was vast separation in performance across and within asset classes. While the S&P 500 ended the year up roughly 2% and the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index advanced roughly 8%, other segments of the stock and bond markets performed much differently. On the positive side, long credit was up over 17% and Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) were up about 14%. In the other direction, small cap U.S. stocks declined 4%, the MSCI EAFE fell 12%, and the MSCI Emerging Markets Small Cap shed a harrowing 27% for the year. In sum, picking stocks versus bonds wasn’t as important as picking your spots within the full range of global asset classes.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

As referenced earlier, 2011 was a year of voluminous volatility coupled with deep-seated differentiation across different types of assets. The end result was that the Portfolio performance managed just over a 1% gain for the full year, which was ahead of the performance of the Portfolio’s custom benchmark. From an attribution perspective, tactical decisions and investments contributed favorably to performance, while the underlying exchange-traded funds in which the Portfolio invested generally performed in line with their respective benchmarks.

While our tactical positioning varied throughout the year, much of the performance benefit was earned by our positioning within different asset classes. To this point, our overall risk asset positioning was relatively neutral throughout the year with more acute leanings toward equities earlier in the year and more cautious during the second half of the year. While our overall equity position ranged from neutral to roughly +4% in aggregate, we held significant positions within the equity sub-asset classes that amounted to 30 to 40 percentage points of deviation from the strategic benchmarks. Some of our higher conviction positions during the year were an overweight position in dividend stocks, an underweight in non-U.S. developed equities, and an overweight position in gold. The relative performance for dividend stocks ebbed and flowed alongside macro news, but for the full year they delivered strong excess returns against other parts of the U.S. equity market. Outside the United States, we introduced an underweight position in non-U.S. developed equities in July—a move that helped to preserve capital as policy-making efforts to stem the tide of currency and debt concerns never seemed to provide any sort of lasting relief. Within the commodity complex we continued to hold gold, despite the significant volatility that gold experienced during the year.

In terms of exposures that impaired performance for the year, our positioning within fixed income as well as a small, but relatively persistent, overweight in emerging markets equity were key detractors. In bonds, we maintained a significant underweight to aggregate bonds that was partially offset by an overweight in investment grade credit and high yield bonds. While our credit investments performed well, the magnitude of the positions was such that the overall positioning created a modest headwind to performance. Emerging market equities had an exceedingly difficult year and even though we moved closer to neutral during the second half of the year, a modest overweight during the first half provided a drag on the annual results.

Dan Farley, CFA Chief Investment Officer—Investment Solutions Group

SSgA Funds Management, Inc.

* This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth and Income ETF Portfolio

Managed by SSgA Funds Management, Inc.

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust		30.0
Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF		14.9
SPDR Barclays Capital High Yield Bond ETF		10.9
iShares MSCI EAFE Index Fund		8.0
SPDR S&P Dividend ETF		8.0
Vanguard MSCI Emerging Markets ETF		4.9
Vanguard REIT ETF		4.1
iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond Fund		4.0
iShares Barclays U.S. Treasury Inflation Protected Securities Fund		4.0
SPDR S&P International Small Cap ETF		2.0

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth and Income ETF Portfolio

SSgA Growth and Income ETF Portfolio managed by

SSgA Funds Management, Inc. vs. MSCI ACWI (All Country World Index)¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 year		5 year		Since Inception3
SSgA Growth and Income ETF Portfolio—Class A		1.28%		2.52%		3.41%
Class B		1.06%		2.27%		3.91%
Class E		1.17%		2.38%		3.26%
MSCI ACWI (All Country World Index)1		-7.35%		-1.93%		2.03%

The performance of Class B shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹ The MSCI ACWI (All Country World Index) is a free float-adjusted market capitalization weighted index that is designed to measure the equity market performance of 24 developed and 21 emerging market indices. The index returns shown above were calculated with net dividends: they reflect the reinvestment of dividends after the deduction of the maximum possible withholding taxes.

²“Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

³Inception of Class B shares is 10/3/2005. Inception of Class A and Class E shares is 5/1/2006. Index returns are based on an inception date of 10/3/2005.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth and Income ETF Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A(a)
Actual		0.32%	$	1,000.00	$	968.00	$	1.59
Hypothetical*		0.32%		1,000.00		1,023.59		1.63
Class B(a)
Actual		0.57%	$	1,000.00	$	966.20	$	2.82
Hypothetical*		0.57%		1,000.00		1,022.33		2.91
Class E(a)
Actual		0.47%	$	1,000.00	$	967.10	$	2.33
Hypothetical*		0.47%		1,000.00		1,022.83		2.40

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

(a) The annualized expense ratio does not include the expenses of the Underlying ETFs in which the Portfolio invests.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth and Income ETF Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Investment Company Securities—95.4% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
iShares Barclays U.S. Treasury Inflation Protected Securities Fund (a)		892,700	$	104,169,163
iShares Gold Trust*		429,200		6,536,716
iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond Fund (a)		916,380		104,247,389
iShares MSCI Canada Index Fund (a)		985,700		26,219,620
iShares MSCI EAFE Index Fund		4,240,900		210,051,777
SPDR Barclays Capital High Yield Bond ETF (a) (b)		7,417,410		285,199,415
SPDR Dow Jones International Real Estate ETF (a) (b)		1,633,598		51,997,424
SPDR Gold Trust* (b)		255,600		38,848,644
SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (a) (b)		6,278,400		787,939,200
SPDR S&P Dividend ETF (a) (b)		3,880,400		209,037,148
SPDR S&P International Small Cap ETF (a) (b)		2,103,423		52,922,123
Vanguard MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (a)		3,394,900		129,719,129
Vanguard REIT ETF (a)		1,843,200		106,905,600
Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF (a)		4,687,200		391,568,688
Total Investment Company Securities (Cost $2,482,485,472)				2,505,362,036
Short-Term Investments—19.3%
Mutual Funds—19.3%
AIM STIT-STIC Prime Portfolio (The)		122,372,056		122,372,056
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (b) (c)		384,383,855		384,383,855
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $506,755,911)				506,755,911
Total Investments—114.7% (Cost $2,989,241,383#)				3,012,117,947
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(14.7)%				(386,994,605	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	2,625,123,342

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $3,003,827,796. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $78,107,995 and $(69,817,844), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $8,290,151 for federal income tax purposes.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities loaned was $410,836,991 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $384,383,855 and non-cash collateral with a value of $35,982,793. The cash collateral is invested in a money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The non-cash collateral received consists primarily of government securities and bank letters of credit, and are held for the benefit of the Portfolio at the Portfolio’s custodian. The Portfolio cannot repledge or resell this collateral. As such, this collateral is excluded from the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

(b) Affiliated Issuer. (See Note 7 to Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in the investment of affiliated issuers.)

(c) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities lending transactions.

(ETF)— Exchange-Traded Fund

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth and Income ETF Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Investment Company Securities	$	2,505,362,036	$	—	$	—	$	2,505,362,036
Total Short-Term Investments*		506,755,911		—		—		506,755,911
Total Investments	$	3,012,117,947	$	—	$	—	$	3,012,117,947

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth and Income ETF Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)(b)	$	1,201,790,138
Affiliated investments at value (c)(d)		1,810,327,809
Cash		1,764,178
Receivable for shares sold		1,708,150
Dividends receivable		8,771,361
Interest receivable		6,529
Total assets		3,024,368,165
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		13,156,856
Shares redeemed		385,650
Collateral for securities loaned		384,383,855
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		673,326
Distribution and service fees - Class B		545,330
Distribution and service fees - Class E		1,166
Administration fees		2,000
Custodian and accounting fees		2,802
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		68,771
Total liabilities		399,244,823
Net Assets	$	2,625,123,342
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	2,486,156,489
Accumulated net realized gain		48,095,567
Unrealized appreciation on investments		22,876,564
Undistributed net investment income		67,994,722
Net Assets	$	2,625,123,342
Net Assets
Class A	$	15,463,542
Class B		2,600,538,828
Class E		9,120,972
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		1,379,917
Class B		233,330,980
Class E		816,730
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	11.21
Class B		11.15
Class E		11.17

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments was $1,230,254,647.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $340,224,222.

(c) Identified cost of affiliated investments was $1,758,986,736.

(d) Includes securities loaned at value of $70,612,769.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Interest (a)	$	2,671,157
Dividends from Underlying ETFs		34,041,961
Dividends from affiliated investments		44,419,686
Total investment income		81,132,804
Expenses
Management fees		7,410,889
Administration fees		24,000
Custodian and accounting fees		31,537
Distribution and service fees - Class B		5,993,816
Distribution and service fees - Class E		13,305
Audit and tax services		38,936
Legal		33,397
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Shareholder reporting		77,822
Insurance		8,396
Miscellaneous		13,636
Total expenses		13,681,158
Net investment income		67,451,646
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments, Investments in Affiliates, Capital Gain Distributions from Underlying ETFs and Capital Gain Distributions from Affiliates
Net realized gain on:
Investments		41,624,043
Investments in affiliates		19,132,456
Capital gain distributions from Underlying ETFs		1,801,833
Capital gain distributions from affiliates		2,368,263
Net realized gain on investments, investment in affiliates, capital gain distributions from Underlying ETFs and capital gain distributions from affiliates		64,926,595
Net change in unrealized depreciation from:
Investments		(78,908,992	)
Investments in affiliates		(42,364,176	)
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments and investments in affiliates		(121,273,168	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments, investments in affiliates, capital gain distributions from Underlying ETFs and capital gain distributions from affiliates		(56,346,573	)
Net Increase in Net Assets from Operations	$	11,105,073

(a) Includes net income from affiliates on securities loaned of $2,625,109.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth and Income ETF Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	67,451,646		$	43,382,269
Net realized gain on investments, investments in affiliates, capital gain distributions from Underlying ETFs and capital gain distributions from affiliates		64,926,595			36,902,892
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments and investments in affiliates		(121,273,168	)		92,990,566
Net increase in net assets resulting from operations		11,105,073			173,275,727
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(252,146	)		(101,607	)
Class B		(40,570,722	)		(13,738,778	)
Class E		(153,683	)		(74,725	)
From net realized gains
Class A		(251,833	)		(332	)
Class B		(43,587,645	)		(47,963	)
Class E		(162,761	)		(260	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(84,978,790	)		(13,963,665	)
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		753,187,015			1,037,619,795
Net Increase in Net Assets		679,313,298			1,196,931,857
Net assets at beginning of period		1,945,810,044			748,878,187
Net assets at end of period	$	2,625,123,342		$	1,945,810,044
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	67,994,722		$	40,959,392

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		638,308		$	7,277,506			632,247		$	6,676,792
Reinvestments		43,484			503,979			9,474			101,938
Redemptions		(287,499	)		(3,268,589	)		(93,777	)		(991,622	)
Net increase		394,293		$	4,512,896			547,944		$	5,787,108
Class B
Sales		75,226,896		$	862,084,852			101,887,404		$	1,082,104,069
Reinvestments		7,286,439			84,158,367			1,283,682			13,786,741
Redemptions		(17,732,640	)		(199,106,980	)		(6,307,787	)		(66,379,990	)
Net increase		64,780,695		$	747,136,239			96,863,299		$	1,029,510,820
Class E
Sales		332,106		$	3,782,004			378,659		$	3,993,332
Reinvestments		27,374			316,444			6,982			74,985
Redemptions		(227,200	)		(2,560,568	)		(164,901	)		(1,746,450	)
Net increase		132,280		$	1,537,880			220,740		$	2,321,867
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	753,187,015					$	1,037,619,795

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth and Income ETF Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	11.48		$	10.34		$	8.49		$	11.80		$	11.13
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.34			0.39			0.35			0.30			0.32
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.17	)		0.90			1.71			(3.15	)		0.35
Total from investment operations		0.17			1.29			2.06			(2.85	)		0.67
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.22	)		(0.15	)		(0.21	)		(0.22	)		(0.00	)+
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.22	)		(0.00	)++		0.00			(0.24	)		(0.00	)++
Total distributions		(0.44	)		(0.15	)		(0.21	)		(0.46	)		(0.00	)+++
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	11.21		$	11.48		$	10.34		$	8.49		$	11.80
Total Return (%)		1.28			12.61			24.96			(24.87	)		5.76
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.32			0.33			0.40			0.52	(c)		0.56	(c)
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(d)(e)		0.32			0.33			0.37			0.51			0.54
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)(f)		3.01			3.64			3.80			2.97			2.67
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		36.3			32.6			21.9			165.9			37.3
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	15.5		$	11.3		$	4.5		$	2.0		$	1.6
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	11.43		$	10.32		$	8.47		$	11.77		$	11.13
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.31			0.37			0.34			0.27			0.20
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.17	)		0.88			1.70			(3.14	)		0.44
Total from investment operations		0.14			1.25			2.04			(2.87	)		0.64
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.20	)		(0.14	)		(0.19	)		(0.19	)		(0.00	)+
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.22	)		(0.00	)++		0.00			(0.24	)		(0.00	)++
Total distributions		(0.42	)		(0.14	)		(0.19	)		(0.43	)		(0.00	)+++
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	11.15		$	11.43		$	10.32		$	8.47		$	11.77
Total Return (%)		1.06			12.24			24.89			(25.06	)		5.40
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.57			0.58			0.65			0.78	(c)		0.79	(c)
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(d)(e)		0.57			0.58			0.62			0.75			0.77
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)(f)		2.79			3.49			3.63			2.64			1.73
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		36.3			32.6			21.9			165.9			37.3
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	2,600.5		$	1,926.7		$	739.6		$	172.3		$	233.5

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth and Income ETF Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	11.44		$	10.32		$	8.47		$	11.77		$	11.12
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.32			0.35			0.33			0.31			0.23
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.17	)		0.91			1.72			(3.16	)		0.42
Total from investment operations		0.15			1.26			2.05			(2.85	)		0.65
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.20	)		(0.14	)		(0.20	)		(0.21	)		(0.00	)+
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.22	)		(0.00	)		0.00			(0.24	)		(0.00	)++
Total distributions		(0.42	)		(0.14	)		(0.20	)		(0.45	)		(0.00	)+++
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	11.17		$	11.44		$	10.32		$	8.47		$	11.77
Total Return (%)		1.17			12.34			24.99			(25.01	)		5.58
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.47			0.48			0.55			0.68	(c)		0.69	(c)
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(d)(e)		0.47			0.48			0.52			0.65			0.67
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)(f)		2.85			3.35			3.59			3.09			1.98
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		36.3			32.6			21.9			165.9			37.3
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	9.1		$	7.8		$	4.8		$	2.5		$	1.9

+ Distributions from net investment income were less than $0.01.

++ Distributions from net realized capital gains were less than $0.01.

+++ Total distributions were less than $0.01.

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) See Note 3 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

(c) Excludes effect of deferred expense reimbursement.

(d) The ratio of operating expenses to average net assets does not include expenses of the Underlying ETFs in which the Portfolio invests.

(e) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

(f) Recognition of net investment income by the Portfolio is affected by the timing of the declaration of dividends by the Underlying ETFs in which it invests.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth and Income ETF Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is SSgA Growth and Income ETF Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A, B and E Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

The Portfolio was designed on established principles of asset allocation. The Portfolio will primarily invest its assets in other investment companies known as exchange-traded funds (“Underlying ETFs”), including, but not limited to, series of the iShares^® Trust, iShares^®, Inc., Standard and Poors Depositary Receipts of the S&P 500 ETF Trust and Vanguard ETFs of the Vanguard^® Index Funds.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Valuation - Investments in the Underlying ETFs are valued at the closing market quotation for their shares. The net asset value of the Portfolio is calculated based on the market values of the Underlying ETFs in which the Portfolio invests. For information about the use of fair value pricing by the Underlying ETFs, please refer to the prospectuses for the Underlying ETFs.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - The Portfolio’s security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date. Interest income is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Capital gains distributions received from the Underlying ETFs are recorded as Net realized gain in the Statement of Operations.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to return of capital distributions from Underlying ETFs, capital gain distributions from Underlying ETFs, deferred trustees’ compensation, adjustment from trust holding, and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Securities Lending - The Portfolio may lend its portfolio securities to certain qualified brokers who borrow securities in order to complete certain securities transactions. By lending its portfolio securities, the Portfolio attempts to increase its net investment income through the receipt of income on the loaned securities. Any gain or loss in the market price of the loaned securities that might occur and any interest earned or dividends declared during the term of the loan would accrue to the account of the Portfolio.

The Trust has entered into a securities lending arrangement with the custodian, State Street Bank and Trust Company (the “custodian”). Under this arrangement, the custodian is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral at least equal to 102% of the market value of the loaned securities (105% for foreign equity securities), at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities must be maintained for the duration of the loan. Cash collateral is generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The Navigator Portfolio is a registered money market fund

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth and Income ETF Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

which invests in a variety of high quality U.S. dollar-denominated instruments. If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower shall be required to deliver, by the close of business on the following business day, an additional amount of collateral so that the total amount of posted collateral equals at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of net income (income after the deduction of expenses and fees of the Navigator Portfolio) on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the custodian and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by U.S. Treasuries, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the custodian. The risks associated with lending portfolio securities include, but are not limited to, possible delays in receiving additional collateral or in the recovery of the loaned securities, possible loss of rights in the collateral should the borrower fail financially, as well as risk of loss in the value of the collateral or the value of the investments made with the collateral. Net interest income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2011 is disclosed in the footnotes to the Statement of Operations. Any outstanding loans by the Portfolio at December 31, 2011 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments.

Due to the affiliation between the Portfolio’s subadviser, SSgA Funds Management, Inc., and the custodian, the Portfolio relies on an exemptive order issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission to the custodian, State Street Navigator Securities Lending Trust (“Navigator Trust”) and the SSgA Funds that permits certain registered investment companies, including the Portfolio, to use cash collateral from securities lending transactions to purchase shares of one of more series of Navigator Trust and to pay fees based on a share of the revenue generated from securities lending transactions to the custodian.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with SSgA Funds Management, Inc. (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Subadviser is an affiliate of State Street Bank and Trust Company, the administrator and custodian of the Trust.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$7,410,889		0.33	%	First $500 Million
		0.30	%	Over $500 Million

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Expense Limitation Agreement - The Adviser had entered into an expense limitation agreement with the Trust (“Expense Limitation Agreement”) in the interest of limiting expenses of the Portfolio. The Expense Limitation Agreement continued in effect with respect to the Portfolio until April 30, 2011. Pursuant to that Expense Limitation Agreement, the Adviser had agreed to waive or limit its fees and to assume other expenses so that the total annual operating expenses of the Portfolio other than interest, taxes, brokerage commissions, other expenditures which were capitalized or expensed in accordance with GAAP, other extraordinary expenses not incurred in the ordinary course of the Portfolio’s business and Underlying ETFs’ fees and expenses but including amounts payable pursuant to a plan adopted in accordance with Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act, were limited to the following expense ratios as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets:

Maximum Expense Ratio under current         Expense Limitation Agreement
Class A	Class B			Class E
0.37%		0.62	%		0.52	%

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth and Income ETF Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

If in any year in which the Management Agreement is still in effect, the estimated aggregate operating expenses of the Portfolio for the fiscal year are less than the Maximum Expense Ratios for that year, subject to approval by the Trust’s Board, the Adviser shall be entitled to reimbursement by the Portfolio to the extent that the charge does not cause the expenses in such subsequent year to exceed the Maximum Expense Ratios as stated above. The Portfolio is not obligated to repay any expense paid by the Adviser more than five years after the end of the fiscal year in which such expense was incurred.

Effective May 1, 2011, there was no longer an expense cap for the Portfolio.

Distribution Agreements and Plans - The Trust has distribution agreements with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A, Class B and Class E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B and Class E distribution plans provide that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% and 0.25%, respectively, of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B and Class E Shares. However, under the Class B and Class E distribution agreements, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B and Class E distribution plans are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% and 0.15% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares, respectively. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B and Class E distribution plans and distribution agreements, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B and Class E Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. as designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$—	$	1,519,473,729	$	—	$	864,691,340

5. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio and the Underlying ETFs invest in securities and enter into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio and the Underlying ETFs may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio or the Underlying ETFs; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio and the Underlying ETFs may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio or the Underlying ETFs have unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio and the Underlying ETFs to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio and in the Underlying ETFs in which it invests.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth and Income ETF Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

7. Affiliated Issuer

A summary of Portfolio’s transactions in the securities of affiliated issuers during the year ended December 31, 2011 was as follows:

Transactions in Securities of Affiliated Issuers

Underlying ETF	Number of shares held at December 31, 2010		Shares purchased		Shares sold			Number of shares held at December 31, 2011
SPDR Barclays Capital High Yield Bond ETF		6,663,510		4,767,400		(4,013,500	)		7,417,410
SPDR Dow Jones International Real Estate ETF		509,100		1,941,898		(817,400	)		1,633,598
SPDR Gold Trust		383,700		30,400		(158,500	)		255,600
SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust		3,483,200		2,884,700		(89,500	)		6,278,400
SPDR S&P Dividend ETF		3,453,200		1,003,900		(576,700	)		3,880,400
SPDR S&P International Small Cap ETF		1,241,600		861,823		—			2,103,423
SPDR S&P MidCap 400 ETF Trust		480,400		89,800		(570,200	)		—
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio		11,566,163		4,573,260,410		(4,200,442,718	)		384,383,855

Underlying ETF	Net Realized Gain/(Loss) on sales of Affiliated Investments			Capital Gain Distributions from Affiliated Investments		Income from Affiliated Investments		Ending Value as of December 31, 2011
SPDR Barclays Capital High Yield Bond ETF	$	6,331,123		$	1,958,775	$	20,149,251	$	285,199,415
SPDR Dow Jones International Real Estate ETF		3,235,975			—		1,472,710		51,997,424
SPDR Gold Trust		7,421,233			—		—		38,848,644
SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust		2,244,272			—		14,576,955		787,939,200
SPDR S&P Dividend ETF		1,847,285			—		6,711,302		209,037,148
SPDR S&P International Small Cap ETF		—			409,488		1,178,708		52,922,123
SPDR S&P MidCap 400 ETF Trust		(1,947,432	)		—		330,760		—
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio		—			—		2,625,109		384,383,855
	$	19,132,456		$	2,368,263	$	47,044,795	$	1,810,327,809

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$52,495,122	$	13,963,665	$	32,483,668	$	—	$	84,978,790	$	13,963,665

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards		Total
$79,805,095	$	50,896,675	$	8,290,150	$	—	$	138,991,920

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses. At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not have any capital loss carryforwards.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth and Income ETF Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth and Income ETF Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of SSgA Growth and Income ETF Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of SSgA Growth and Income ETF Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodians and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of SSgA Growth and Income ETF Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 23, 2012

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth and Income ETF Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the SSgA Growth and Income ETF Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth and Income ETF Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the SSgA Growth and Income ETF Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the one-, three- and five- year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board further considered that the Portfolio outperformed its benchmark, the MSCI All Country World Index, for the same periods ended September 30, 2011. The Board also noted the change in Sub-Adviser of the Portfolio in September 2008. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s performance was satisfactory.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth and Income ETF Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the SSgA Growth and Income ETF Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the Expense Group median and the Expense Universe median. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s expenses. The Board took into account the limited peer group in which the Portfolio was included for comparative purposes. The Board also noted that the advisory fee and the sub-advisory fee for the Portfolio had been lowered effective September 2008. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth and Income ETF Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the SSgA Growth and Income ETF Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee and sub-advisory fee each contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s management fees were below the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

In addition, the Board reviewed the advisory fee to be paid to the Adviser and the sub-advisory fee to be paid to the Sub-Adviser for the SSgA Growth and Income ETF Portfolio and concluded that the advisory fee to be paid to the Adviser and the sub-advisory fee to be paid to the Sub-Adviser with respect to the Portfolio is based on services to be provided that are in addition to, rather than duplicative of, the services provided pursuant to the advisory agreements and the sub-advisory agreements for the underlying funds in which the Portfolio invests and that the additional services are necessary because of the differences between the investment policies, strategies and techniques of the Portfolio and those of the underlying funds.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

23

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust SSgA Growth ETF Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth ETF Portfolio

Managed by SSgA Funds Management, Inc.

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A, B, and E shares of the SSgA Growth ETF Portfolio returned -1.87%, -2.13%, and -1.99%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the MSCI All Country World Index¹, returned -7.35%.

Market Environment/Conditions

2011 was characterized by significant volatility and frequent sentiment-shifting about how economic growth and debt concerns would impact different parts of the world. One of the ways in which the capital markets were perceived was that of a risk-on versus risk-off environment.

In some ways, signs of a risk-on versus risk-off mentality were relatively self-evident when looking back upon 2011 in the rear-view mirror. We witnessed periods of headline driven, macro-oriented price action in risky assets. The frustrating part was that the markets were driven by the same news and the same events —predominantly growth scares and Euro debt concerns—repeatedly throughout the year. After adding to these ignominiously recurrent themes global events such as an earthquake turned tsunami turned nuclear disaster in Japan, the killing of Osama bin Laden, and a U.S. credit rating downgrade, it became clear that there was no shortage of macro topics to instigate alarm in the markets.

However, the short term volatility in the markets and a focus on risk-on versus risk-off did not adequately describe the overall market atmosphere during 2011. Specifically, there was vast separation in performance across and within asset classes. While the S&P 500 ended the year up roughly 2% and the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index advanced roughly 8%, other segments of the stock and bond markets performed much differently. On the positive side, long credit was up over 17% and Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) were up about 14%. In the other direction, small cap U.S. stocks declined 4%, the MSCI EAFE fell 12%, and the MSCI Emerging Markets Small Cap shed a harrowing 27% for the year. In sum, picking stocks versus bonds wasn’t as important as picking your spots within the full range of global asset classes.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

As referenced earlier, 2011 was a year of voluminous volatility coupled with deep-seated differentiation across different types of assets. The end result was portfolio performance that, in absolute terms, underperformed the performance of the Portfolio’s custom blended benchmark. From an attribution perspective, tactical decisions and investments contributed favorably to performance, while the underlying exchange-traded funds in which the Portfolio invested generally performed in line with their respective benchmarks.

While our tactical positioning varied throughout the year, much of the performance benefit was earned by our positioning within different asset classes. To this point, our overall risk asset positioning was relatively neutral throughout the year with more acute leanings toward equities earlier in the year and more cautious during the second half of the year. While our overall equity position ranged from neutral to roughly +4% in aggregate, we held significant positions within the equity sub-asset classes that amounted to 30 to 40 percentage points of deviation from the strategic benchmarks. Some of our higher conviction positions during the year were an overweight position in dividend stocks, an underweight in non-U.S. developed equities, and an overweight position in gold. The relative performance for dividend stocks ebbed and flowed alongside macro news, but for the full year they delivered strong excess returns against other parts of the U.S. equity market. Outside the United States, we introduced an underweight position in non-U.S. developed equities in July—a move that helped to preserve capital as policy-making efforts to stem the tide of currency and debt concerns never seemed to provide any sort of lasting relief. Within the commodity complex we continued to hold gold, despite the significant volatility that gold experienced during the year.

In terms of exposures that impaired performance for the year, our positioning within fixed income as well as a small, but relatively persistent, overweight in emerging markets equity were key detractors. In bonds, we maintained a significant underweight to aggregate bonds that was partially offset by an overweight in investment grade credit and high yield bonds. While our credit investments performed well, the magnitude of the positions was such that the overall positioning created a modest headwind to performance. Emerging market equities had an exceedingly difficult year and even though we moved closer to neutral during the second half of the year, a modest overweight during the first half provided a drag on the annual results.

Dan Farley, CFA Chief Investment Officer—Investment Solutions Group

SSgA Funds Management, Inc.

* This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth ETF Portfolio

Managed by SSgA Funds Management, Inc.

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust		35.4
iShares MSCI EAFE Index Fund		13.8
SPDR S&P Dividend ETF		8.1
Vanguard MSCI Emerging Markets ETF		6.7
SPDR Barclays Capital High Yield Bond ETF		6.0
Vanguard REIT ETF		4.1
iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond Fund		4.0
SPDR S&P MidCap 400 ETF Trust		3.0
SPDR S&P International Small Cap ETF		2.8
iShares S&P SmallCap 600 Index Fund		2.1

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth ETF Portfolio

SSgA Growth ETF Portfolio managed by

SSgA Funds Management, Inc. vs. MSCI ACWI (All Country World Index)¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 year		5 year		Since Inception3
SSgA Growth ETF Portfolio—Class A		-1.87%		0.68%		1.84%
Class B		-2.13%		0.42%		2.77%
Class E		-1.99%		0.52%		1.69%
MSCI ACWI (All Country World Index)1		-7.35%		-1.93%		2.03%

The performance of Class B shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹ The MSCI ACWI (All Country World Index) is a free float-adjusted market capitalization weighted index that is designed to measure the equity market performance of 24 developed and 21 emerging market indices. The index returns shown above were calculated with net dividends: they reflect the reinvestment of dividends after the deduction of the maximum possible withholding taxes.

²“Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

³Inception of Class B shares is 10/3/2005. Inception of Class A and Class E shares is 5/1/2006. Index returns are based on an inception date of 10/3/2005.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth ETF Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A(a)
Actual		0.35%	$	1,000.00	$	933.80	$	1.71
Hypothetical*		0.35%		1,000.00		1,023.44		1.79
Class B(a)
Actual		0.60%	$	1,000.00	$	932.70	$	2.92
Hypothetical*		0.60%		1,000.00		1,022.18		3.06
Class E(a)
Actual		0.50%	$	1,000.00	$	932.80	$	2.44
Hypothetical*		0.50%		1,000.00		1,022.68		2.55

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

(a) The annualized expense ratio does not include the expenses of the Underlying ETFs in which the Portfolio invests.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth ETF Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Investment Company Securities—95.9% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
iShares Barclays U.S. Treasury Inflation Protected Securities Fund (a)		126,400	$	14,749,616
iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond Fund (a)		269,100		30,612,816
iShares MSCI Canada Index Fund (a)		569,900		15,159,340
iShares MSCI EAFE Index Fund		2,134,100		105,701,973
iShares S&P SmallCap 600 Index Fund (a)		235,700		16,093,596
SPDR Barclays Capital High Yield Bond ETF (b)		1,192,400		45,847,780
SPDR Dow Jones International Real Estate ETF (b)		447,900		14,256,657
SPDR Gold Trust* (b)		105,700		16,065,343
SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (a) (b)		2,160,500		271,142,750
SPDR S&P Dividend ETF (b)		1,153,600		62,144,432
SPDR S&P International Small Cap ETF (b)		859,100		21,614,956
SPDR S&P MidCap 400 ETF Trust (a) (b)		144,400		23,037,576
Vanguard MSCI Emerging Markets ETF		1,345,400		51,407,734
Vanguard REIT ETF		541,900		31,430,200
Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF		181,100		15,129,094
Total Investment Company Securities (Cost $709,942,564)				734,393,863
Short-Term Investments—14.9%
Mutual Funds—14.9%
AIM STIT-STIC Prime Portfolio (The)		29,013,302		29,013,302
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (b) (c)		84,981,063		84,981,063
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $113,994,365)				113,994,365
Total Investments—110.8% (Cost $823,936,929#)				848,388,228
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(10.8)%				(82,854,174	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	765,534,054

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $831,349,068. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $38,934,882 and $(21,895,722), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $17,039,160 for federal income tax purposes.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities loaned was $84,809,420 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $84,981,063 and non-cash collateral with a value of $1,688,814. The cash collateral is invested in a money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The non-cash collateral received consists primarily of government securities and bank letters of credit, and are held for the benefit of the Portfolio at the Portfolio’s custodian. The Portfolio cannot repledge or resell this collateral. As such, this collateral is excluded from the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

(b) Affiliated Issuer. (See Note 7 to Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in the investment of affiliated issuers.)

(c) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities lending transactions.

(ETF)— Exchange-Traded Fund

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth ETF Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Investment Company Securities	$	734,393,863	$	—	$	—	$	734,393,863
Total Short-Term Investments*		113,994,365		—		—		113,994,365
Total Investments	$	848,388,228	$	—	$	—	$	848,388,228

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth ETF Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)(b)	$	309,297,671
Affiliated investments at value (c)(d)		539,090,557
Cash		70,086
Receivable for shares sold		227,887
Dividends receivable		2,420,285
Interest receivable		1,660
Total assets		851,108,146
Liabilities
Payables for:
Shares redeemed		133,286
Collateral for securities loaned		84,981,063
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		206,859
Distribution and service fees - Class B		158,400
Distribution and service fees - Class E		748
Administration fees		2,000
Custodian and accounting fees		2,724
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		63,945
Total liabilities		85,574,092
Net Assets	$	765,534,054
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	701,847,049
Accumulated net realized gain		22,798,697
Unrealized appreciation on investments		24,451,299
Undistributed net investment income		16,437,009
Net Assets	$	765,534,054
Net Assets
Class A	$	10,067,496
Class B		749,473,739
Class E		5,992,819
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		938,828
Class B		70,217,431
Class E		560,427
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	10.72
Class B		10.67
Class E		10.69

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments was $324,259,154.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $54,493,926.

(c) Identified cost of affiliated investments was $499,677,775.

(d) Includes securities loaned at value of $30,315,494.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Interest (a)	$	351,785
Dividends from Underlying ETFs		8,683,638
Dividends from affiliated investments		11,952,140
Total investment income		20,987,563
Expenses
Management fees		2,399,543
Administration fees		24,000
Custodian and accounting fees		31,128
Distribution and service fees - Class B		1,837,299
Distribution and service fees - Class E		8,568
Audit and tax services		38,936
Legal		33,397
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Shareholder reporting		57,600
Insurance		3,199
Miscellaneous		8,891
Total expenses		4,477,985
Net investment income		16,509,578
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments, Investments in Affiliates, Capital Gain Distributions from Underlying ETFs and Capital Gain Distributions from Affiliates
Net realized gain on:
Investments		19,200,273
Investments in affiliates		12,484,854
Capital gain distributions from Underlying ETFs		65,400
Capital gain distributions from affiliates		490,930
Net realized gain on investments, investment in affiliates, capital gain distributions from Underlying ETFs and capital gain distributions from affiliates		32,241,457
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) from:
Investments		(48,335,771	)
Investments in affiliates		(19,211,767	)
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments and investments in affiliates		(67,547,538	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments, investments in affiliates, capital gain distributions from Underlying ETFs and capital gain distributions from affiliates		(35,306,081	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(18,796,503	)

(a) Includes net income from affiliates on securities loaned of $339,639.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth ETF Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	16,509,578		$	12,844,800
Net realized gain on investments, investments in affiliates, capital gain distributions from Underlying ETFs and capital gain distributions from affiliates		32,241,457			1,632,031
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments and investment in affiliates		(67,547,538	)		59,812,745
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations		(18,796,503	)		74,289,576
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(152,949	)		(84,162	)
Class B		(11,574,204	)		(7,253,526	)
Class E		(90,327	)		(67,817	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(11,817,480	)		(7,405,505	)
Net increase in net assets from capital share transactions		132,589,910			165,086,866
Net Increase in Net Assets		101,975,927			231,970,937
Net assets at beginning of period		663,558,127			431,587,190
Net assets at end of period	$	765,534,054		$	663,558,127
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	16,437,009		$	12,666,220

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		490,518		$	5,446,949			308,657		$	3,102,129
Reinvestments		13,254			152,949			8,140			84,162
Redemptions		(238,999	)		(2,615,901	)		(91,645	)		(937,086	)
Net increase		264,773		$	2,983,997			225,152		$	2,249,205
Class B
Sales		20,865,385		$	231,101,476			23,640,077		$	239,372,954
Reinvestments		1,005,578			11,574,204			702,861			7,253,526
Redemptions		(10,458,746	)		(114,194,304	)		(8,516,291	)		(84,096,207	)
Net increase		11,412,217		$	128,481,376			15,826,647		$	162,530,273
Class E
Sales		274,927		$	3,054,493			158,139		$	1,600,626
Reinvestments		7,841			90,327			6,565			67,817
Redemptions		(183,257	)		(2,020,283	)		(135,085	)		(1,361,055	)
Net increase		99,511		$	1,124,537			29,619		$	307,388
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	132,589,910					$	165,086,866

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth ETF Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	11.11		$	9.87		$	7.81		$	12.09		$	11.39
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.28			0.28			0.28			0.24			0.22
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.47	)		1.13			1.96			(4.09	)		0.48
Total from investment operations		(0.19	)		1.41			2.24			(3.85	)		0.70
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.20	)		(0.17	)		(0.18	)		(0.19	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.24	)		0.00
Total distributions		(0.20	)		(0.17	)		(0.18	)		(0.43	)		0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.72		$	11.11		$	9.87		$	7.81		$	12.09
Total Return (%)		(1.87	)		14.37			29.51			(32.84	)		6.15
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.35			0.36			0.43			0.52	(c)		0.54	(c)
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(d)(e)		0.35			0.36			0.40			0.50			0.53
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)(f)		2.51			2.77			3.20			2.35			1.85
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		35.3			36.6			22.9			140.3			20.2
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	10.1		$	7.5		$	4.4		$	1.0		$	1.5
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	11.07		$	9.84		$	7.79		$	12.06		$	11.39
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.24			0.25			0.23			0.20			0.15
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.46	)		1.13			1.98			(4.07	)		0.52
Total from investment operations		(0.22	)		1.38			2.21			(3.87	)		0.67
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.18	)		(0.15	)		(0.16	)		(0.16	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.24	)		0.00
Total distributions		(0.18	)		(0.15	)		(0.16	)		(0.40	)		0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.67		$	11.07		$	9.84		$	7.79		$	12.06
Total Return (%)		(2.13	)		14.15			29.10			(32.97	)		5.88
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.60			0.61			0.68			0.77	(c)		0.78	(c)
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(d)(e)		0.60			0.61			0.65			0.75			0.77
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)(f)		2.20			2.47			2.70			1.99			1.25
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		35.3			36.6			22.9			140.3			20.2
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	749.5		$	651.0		$	422.9		$	153.2		$	253.7

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth ETF Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	11.08		$	9.85		$	7.79		$	12.07		$	11.39
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.27			0.25			0.23			0.23			0.21
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.48	)		1.13			2.00			(4.09	)		0.47
Total from investment operations		(0.21	)		1.38			2.23			(3.86	)		0.68
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.18	)		(0.15	)		(0.17	)		(0.18	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.24	)		0.00
Total distributions		(0.18	)		(0.15	)		(0.17	)		(0.42	)		0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.69		$	11.08		$	9.85		$	7.79		$	12.07
Total Return (%)		(1.99	)		14.17			29.35			(32.91	)		5.97
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.50			0.51			0.58			0.67	(c)		0.69	(c)
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(d)(e)		0.50			0.51			0.55			0.65			0.68
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)(f)		2.34			2.44			2.71			2.28			1.70
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		35.3			36.6			22.9			140.3			20.2
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	6.0		$	5.1		$	4.2		$	2.7		$	3.5

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) See Note 3 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

(c) Excludes effect of deferred expense reimbursement—See Note 3 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

(d) The ratio of operating expenses to average net assets does not include expenses of the Underlying ETFs in which the Portfolio invests.

(e) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

(f) Recognition of net investment income by the Portfolio is affected by the timing of the declaration of dividends by the Underlying ETFs in which it invests.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth ETF Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is SSgA Growth ETF Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A, B and E Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

The Portfolio was designed on established principles of asset allocation. The Portfolio will primarily invest its assets in other investment companies known as exchange-traded funds (“Underlying ETFs”), including, but not limited to, series of the iShares^® Trust, iShares^®, Inc., Standard and Poors Depositary Receipts of the S&P 500 ETF Trust and Vanguard ETFs of the Vanguard^® Index Funds.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Valuation - Investments in the Underlying ETFs are valued at the closing market quotation for their shares. The net asset value of the Portfolio is calculated based on the market values of the Underlying ETFs in which the Portfolio invests. For information about the use of fair value pricing by the Underlying ETFs, please refer to the prospectuses for such Underlying ETFs.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - The Portfolio’s security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date. Interest income is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Capital gains distributions received from the Underlying ETFs are recorded as Net realized gain in the Statement of Operations.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to return of capital distributions from Underlying ETFs, adjustment from trust holding, deferred trustees’ compensation, capital loss carryforwards and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Securities Lending - The Portfolio may lend its portfolio securities to certain qualified brokers who borrow securities in order to complete certain securities transactions. By lending its portfolio securities, the Portfolio attempts to increase its net investment income through the receipt of income on the loaned securities. Any gain or loss in the market price of the loaned securities that might occur and any interest earned or dividends declared during the term of the loan would accrue to the account of the Portfolio.

The Trust has entered into a securities lending arrangement with the custodian, State Street Bank and Trust Company (the “custodian”). Under this arrangement, the custodian is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral at least equal to 102% of the market value of the loaned securities (105% for foreign equity securities), at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities must be maintained for the duration of the loan. Cash collateral is generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth ETF Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Prime Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The Navigator Portfolio is a registered money market fund which invests in a variety of high quality U.S. dollar-denominated instruments. If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower shall be required to deliver, by the close of business on the following business day, an additional amount of collateral so that the total amount of posted collateral equals at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of net income (income after the deduction of expenses and fees of the Navigator Portfolio) on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the custodian and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by U.S. Treasuries, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the custodian. The risks associated with lending portfolio securities include, but are not limited to, possible delays in receiving additional collateral or in the recovery of the loaned securities, possible loss of rights in the collateral should the borrower fail financially, as well as risk of loss in the value of the collateral or the value of the investments made with the collateral. Net interest income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2011 is disclosed in the footnotes to the Statement of Operations. Any outstanding loans by the Portfolio at December 31, 2011 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments.

Due to the affiliation between the Portfolio’s subadviser, SSgA Funds Management, Inc. and the custodian, the Portfolio relies on an exemptive order issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission to the custodian, State Street Navigator Securities Lending Trust (“Navigator Trust”) and the SSgA Funds that permits certain registered investment companies, including the Portfolio, to use cash collateral from securities lending transactions to purchase shares of one of more series of Navigator Trust and to pay fees based on a share of the revenue generated from securities lending transactions to the custodian.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with SSgA Funds Management, Inc. (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Subadviser is an affiliate of State Street Bank and Trust Company, the administrator and custodian of the Trust.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Adviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$2,399,543		0.33	%	First $	500 Million
		0.30	%	Over $	500 Million

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Expense Limitation Agreement - The Adviser had entered into an expense limitation agreement with the Trust (“Expense Limitation Agreement”) in the interest of limiting expenses of the Portfolio. The Expense Limitation Agreement continued in effect with respect to the Portfolio until April 30, 2011. Pursuant to that Expense Limitation Agreement, the Adviser had agreed to waive or limit its fees and to assume other expenses so that the total annual operating expenses of the Portfolio other than interest, taxes, brokerage commissions, other expenditures which were capitalized or expensed in accordance with GAAP, other extraordinary expenses not incurred in the ordinary course of the Portfolio’s

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth ETF Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

business and Underlying ETFs’ fees and expenses but including amounts payable pursuant to a plan adopted in accordance with Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act, were limited to the following expense ratios as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets:

Maximum Expense Ratio under current         Expense Limitation Agreement
Class A	Class B			Class E
0.40%		0.65	%		0.55	%

If in any year in which the Management Agreement is still in effect, the estimated aggregate portfolio operating expenses of the Portfolio for the fiscal year are less than the Maximum Expense Ratios for that year, subject to approval by the Trust’s Board, the Adviser shall be entitled to reimbursement by the Portfolio to the extent that the charge does not cause the expenses in such subsequent year to exceed the Maximum Expense Ratios as stated above. The Portfolio is not obligated to repay any expense paid by the Adviser more than five years after the end of the fiscal year in which such expense was incurred.

Effective May 1, 2011, there was no longer an expense cap for the Portfolio.

Distribution Agreements and Plans - The Trust has distribution agreements with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A, Class B and Class E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B and Class E distribution plans provide that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% and 0.25%, respectively, of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B and Class E Shares. However, under the Class B and Class E distribution agreements, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B and Class E distribution plans are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% and 0.15% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares, respectively. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B and Class E distribution plans and distribution agreements, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B and Class E Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. as designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$—	$	380,376,791	$	—	$	261,273,819

5. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio and the Underlying ETFs invest in securities and enter into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio and the Underlying ETFs may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth ETF Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk - continued

companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio or the Underlying ETFs; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio and the Underlying ETFs may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio or the Underlying ETFs have unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio and the Underlying ETFs to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio and in the Underlying ETFs in which it invests.

7. Affiliated Issuer

A summary of Portfolio’s transactions in the securities of affiliated issuers during the year ended December 31, 2011 was as follows:

Transactions in Securities of Affiliated Issuers

Underlying ETF	Number of shares held at December 31, 2010		Shares purchased		Shares sold			Number of shares held at December 31, 2011
SPDR Barclays Capital High Yield Bond ETF		1,447,700		1,042,700		(1,298,000	)		1,192,400
SPDR Dow Jones International Real Estate ETF		174,400		541,900		(268,400	)		447,900
SPDR Gold Trust		154,800		13,900		(63,000	)		105,700
SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust		1,443,600		751,100		(34,200	)		2,160,500
SPDR S&P Dividend ETF		1,174,100		188,900		(209,400	)		1,153,600
SPDR S&P International Small Cap ETF		629,900		254,100		(24,900	)		859,100
SPDR S&P MidCap 400 ETF Trust		280,800		45,900		(182,300	)		144,400
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio		3,352,784		1,169,478,883		(1,087,850,604	)		84,981,063

Underlying ETF	Net Realized Gain/(Loss) on sales of Affiliated Investments			Capital Gain Distributions from Affiliated Investments		Income from Affiliated Investments		Ending Value as of December 31, 2011
SPDR Barclays Capital High Yield Bond ETF	$	2,110,397			$314,887	$	3,411,420	$	45,847,780
SPDR Dow Jones International Real Estate ETF		1,068,057			—		434,495		14,256,657
SPDR Gold Trust		3,525,768			—		—		16,065,343
SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust		(291,439	)		—		5,188,747		271,142,750
SPDR S&P Dividend ETF		685,480			—		2,066,205		62,144,432
SPDR S&P International Small Cap ETF		321,527			176,043		512,069		21,614,956
SPDR S&P MidCap 400 ETF Trust		5,065,064			—		339,204		23,037,576
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio		—			—		339,639		84,981,063
	$	12,484,854			$490,930	$	12,291,779	$	539,090,557

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$11,817,480	$	7,405,505	$	—	$	—	$	11,817,480	$	7,405,505

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth ETF Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

8. Income Tax Information - continued

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Total
$19,267,644	$	27,405,269	$	17,039,159	$	63,712,072

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses. At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not have any capital loss carryforwards.

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth ETF Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of SSgA Growth ETF Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of SSgA Growth ETF Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodians and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of SSgA Growth ETF Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 23, 2012

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth ETF Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the SSgA Growth ETF Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth ETF Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the SSgA Growth ETF Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe for the one-, three- and five- year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board also considered that the Portfolio outperformed its Lipper Index for the one- and three- year periods ended June 30, 2011 and equaled its Lipper Index for the five- year period ended June 30, 2011. The Board further considered that the Portfolio outperformed its benchmark, the MSCI All Country World Index, for the same periods ended September 30, 2011. The Board also noted the change in Sub-Adviser of the Portfolio in September 2008. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s performance was satisfactory.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth ETF Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the SSgA Growth ETF Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the Expense Group median and the Expense Universe median. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s expenses. The Board took into account the limited peer group in which the Portfolio was included for comparative purposes. The Board also noted that the advisory fee and the sub-advisory fee for the Portfolio had been lowered effective September 2008. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

SSgA Growth ETF Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the SSgA Growth ETF Portfolio, The Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee and sub-advisory fee each contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s management fees were below the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

In addition, the Board reviewed the advisory fee to be paid to the Adviser and the sub-advisory fee to be paid to the Sub-Adviser for the SSgA Growth ETF Portfolio and concluded that the advisory fee to be paid to the Adviser and the sub-advisory fee to be paid to the Sub-Adviser with respect to the Portfolio is based on services to be provided that are in addition to, rather than duplicative of, the services provided pursuant to the advisory agreements and the sub-advisory agreements for the underlying funds in which the Portfolio invests and that the additional services are necessary because of the differences between the investment policies, strategies and techniques of the Portfolio and those of the underlying funds.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

23

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio (formerly Lord Abbett Growth and Income Portfolio) Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio

Managed by T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. became the subadviser to the Portfolio on May 1, 2011. Prior to May 1, 2011, the Portfolio was subadvised by Lord, Abbett & Co., LLC

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A and B shares of the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio returned -3.77% and -4.01%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Russell 1000 Value Index¹, returned 0.39%.

Market Environment/Conditions

The following discussion was provided by Lord, Abbett & Co., LLC and refers to the period when they served as the Portfolio’s subadviser (January 1, 2011 to April 30, 2011)

Equity markets rose during the period despite disruption due to unrest in the Middle East and North Africa and to the earthquake and tsunami in Japan. Economic indicators in the first quarter generally pointed toward continued economic growth.

Industrial production and capacity utilization have remained steady. The manufacturing index published by the Institute for Supply Management stayed well above the 50% level, as it has for the past year. (A reading above 50% indicates the sector is expanding.)

The consumer segment of the economy strengthened, despite continued weakness in the housing market. Disposable personal income rose, and retail sales have improved even as consumers continued to save at a relatively high rate.

Job growth showed improvement in the first quarter. The labor force participation rate remained relatively low, however.

Despite signs of growing strength in the economy, the Federal Reserve kept its official interest rate low and continued its quantitative easing program. This involved the purchase of Treasury securities in order to keep interest rates low and encourage borrowing.

The S&P 500^® Index rose 9.06% during the period, and small caps outperformed large caps. Gains occurred across all major sectors, but Energy, Health Care and Industrials were among those that outperformed the broader market. Among large cap stocks during the period, the growth category outperformed value. Similarly, in small cap stocks, growth outperformed value.

The following discussion was provided by T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. and refers to the period when they served as the Portfolio’s subadviser (May 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011)

Major U.S. stock market indexes moved in a wide trading range in 2011 but were ultimately little changed for the year. Market volatility was high, driven by economic and geopolitical concerns. As the year began, equities climbed as the U.S. economy showed signs of strengthening and the Federal Reserve was in the midst of purchasing $600 billion in Treasury securities through June to suppress longer-term interest rates and promote economic growth. The rally was supported by a two-year extension of the Bush-era tax cuts at the end of 2010, healthy corporate earnings, and merger activity. Shares reached new bull market highs by the end of April despite turmoil in various Middle East and North African countries and sharp increases in oil and other commodity prices.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

The following discussion was provided by Lord, Abbett & Co., LLC and refers to the period when they served as the Portfolio’s subadviser (January 1, 2011 to April 30, 2011)

The Portfolio underperformed the Russell 1000^® Value Index for year-to-date period ended April 30, 2011.

As a result of the turmoil in the Middle East and Northern Africa, the Portfolio benefited and suffered in different respects. Most notably, the approximate 20% rise in the price of oil during the period supported the market’s strongest returns in the Energy sector, where we had a significant overweight. Conversely, companies (e.g., airlines, automobiles, retailers, etc.) who were impacted by the higher cost of oil suffered.

Within Consumer Discretionary, the performance of Ford Motor Company detracted relatively, as a result of missing analysts’ earnings estimates. This was the first time in two years that the automaker disappointed investors and analysts by posting results short of expectations. The miss was driven by the impact of a lower inventory build in North America. The company also experienced higher-than expected structural costs, which were attributed to the high level of product launches. On the positive side, Ford exceeded expectations for revenue. Also, it continues on the path of improving its balance sheet by reducing debt and is expected to be significantly net-cash positive by the end of 2011. Also within the sector, Marriott International retreated during the period after six months of strong performance. While the lodging company reported earnings that exceeded consensus expectations, it also announced a spin off of its timeshare business to which investors reacted unfavorably. Marriott also softened its revenue guidance due to weakness in select markets.

Within Industrials, stock selection detracted from relative performance, with shares of Delta Air Lines declining following its first quarter earnings report. The airline reported results that missed analysts’ expectations due to higher fuel costs, weather-related flight cancellations, higher interest expense, and higher-than-expected profit-sharing costs. However, Delta experienced increases in unit revenues and in its operating margin. It remains on track to meet its net debt-reduction goals.

On the positive side, strong selection and a favorable underweight within the weak-performing Consumer Staples sector contributed to

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio

Managed by T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

relative performance. Archer-Daniels-Midland delivered outstanding quarterly results that exceeded expectations. The agricultural company reported strong results in nearly all business units, most notably the agricultural services and the corn processing segments.

Within the Energy sector, a beneficial overweight contributed to relative performance. The overweight positions in the oil, gas, & consumable fuels industry and the energy equipment & services industry contributed markedly to Portfolio results.

The following discussion was provided by T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. and refers to the period when they served as the Portfolio’s subadviser (May 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011)

The Utilities sector was the largest detractor from relative returns due to stock selection and our underweight position. Independent power producer NRG Energy lowered its 2011 earnings guidance after a record heat wave in Texas drove up power demand, leading to a spike in power prices.

Stock selection and our underweight position in the strongly performing Consumer Staples sector also weighed on relative returns. Avon continued to struggle from poor management and two government investigations.

At the other end of the spectrum, stock selection in the Information Technology (IT) sector aided relative returns. Leading global technology solutions company IBM benefited from a pickup in enterprise spending and strong growth in emerging markets, where it is one of the best-positioned enterprise vendors. The company has an attractive portfolio of businesses with good revenue visibility, pays a solid dividend, and has continued its aggressive share buybacks. Despite a lackluster PC environment and weak IT spending, Microsoft was able to grow revenues and earnings due to strength in its Office, Server, and Xbox segments.

An underweight position in Financials, the weakest-performing sector in the index, also provided a boost to relative performance; however, stock selection offset some of the positive impact from sector allocation. Investors remained concerned about the strength and sustainability of the economic recovery, the downgrade of the U.S. debt rating, and the ongoing European sovereign debt crisis.

John D. Linehan, CFA, MBA, Portfolio Manager

Brian C. Rogers, CFA, MBA, CIC, Portfolio Manager

Mark S. Finn, CFA, CPA, Portfolio Manager

T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.

* This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio

Managed by T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Chevron Corp.		3.8
Exxon Mobil Corp.		3.2
Pfizer, Inc.		2.9
JPMorgan Chase & Co.		2.7
AT&T, Inc.		2.5
Microsoft Corp.		2.5
Merck & Co., Inc.		2.5
Time Warner, Inc.		2.3
General Electric Co.		2.1
Johnson & Johnson		2.1

Top Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Financials		17.8
Non-Cyclical		17.4
Energy		17.4
Industrials		14.3
Communications		10.2
Cyclical		6.5
Technology		5.8
Basic Materials		5.7
Utilities		4.9

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio managed by

T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. vs. Russell 1000 Value Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year
T Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio—Class A		-3.77%		-2.32%		2.83%
Class B		-4.01%		-2.56%		2.58%
Russell 1000 Value Index1		0.39%		-2.64%		3.89%

The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other class of shares because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹The Russell 1000 Value Index is an unmanaged measure of the largest capitalized U.S. domiciled companies with a less than average growth orientation. Companies in this Index generally have a low price-to-book and price-to-earnings ratio, higher dividend yields and lower forecasted growth values.

²“Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A(a)
Actual		0.57%	$	1,000.00	$	934.20	$	2.78
Hypothetical*		0.57%		1,000.00		1,022.33		2.91
Class B(a)
Actual		0.82%	$	1,000.00	$	932.90	$	4.00
Hypothetical*		0.82%		1,000.00		1,021.07		4.18

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

(a) The annualized expense ratio reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 3 to the Financial Statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—99.0% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—3.1%
Boeing Co. (The)		256,000	$	18,777,600
Honeywell International, Inc.		497,000		27,011,950
Lockheed Martin Corp.		192,000		15,532,800
Raytheon Co. (a)		553,000		26,754,140
				88,076,490
Airlines—1.4%
Southwest Airlines Co.		4,640,000		39,718,400
Automobiles—1.2%
General Motors Co.*		1,600,000		32,432,000
Beverages—1.4%
Beam, Inc		280,000		14,344,400
PepsiCo, Inc.		378,000		25,080,300
				39,424,700
Biotechnology—1.2%
Amgen, Inc.		532,000		34,159,720
Capital Markets—4.0%
Ameriprise Financial, Inc.		365,000		18,118,600
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The)		135,000		12,208,050
Legg Mason, Inc. (a)		345,000		8,297,250
Morgan Stanley		2,985,000		45,163,050
State Street Corp.		714,000		28,781,340
				112,568,290
Chemicals—0.7%
Monsanto Co.		297,000		20,810,790
Commercial Banks—4.1%
Fifth Third Bancorp.		1,910,000		24,295,200
KeyCorp.		3,165,000		24,338,850
U.S. Bancorp. (a)		1,405,000		38,005,250
Wells Fargo & Co.		1,055,000		29,075,800
				115,715,100
Communications Equipment—1.3%
Cisco Systems, Inc.		1,955,000		35,346,400
Computers & Peripherals—1.3%
Dell, Inc.*		1,495,000		21,871,850
Hewlett-Packard Co.		555,000		14,296,800
				36,168,650
Construction Materials—1.1%
Vulcan Materials Co. (a)		815,000		32,070,250
Consumer Finance—2.1%
American Express Co.		831,000	$	39,198,270
SLM Corp.		1,540,000		20,636,000
				59,834,270
Diversified Consumer Services—0.8%
H&R Block, Inc. (a)		1,405,000		22,943,650
Diversified Financial Services—3.9%
Bank of America Corp.		5,845,000		32,498,200
JPMorgan Chase & Co.		2,285,000		75,976,250
				108,474,450
Diversified Telecommunication Services—2.5%
AT&T, Inc. (a)		2,345,000		70,912,800
Electric Utilities—3.3%
Entergy Corp. (a)		575,000		42,003,750
Exelon Corp. (a)		1,183,000		51,306,710
				93,310,460
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—0.8%
TE Connectivity, Ltd.		700,000		21,567,000
Energy Equipment & Services—1.9%
Baker Hughes, Inc.		793,000		38,571,520
Schlumberger, Ltd. (a)		198,000		13,525,380
				52,096,900
Food & Staples Retailing—1.2%
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (a)		567,000		33,883,920
Food Products—1.0%
Kellogg Co.		525,000		26,549,250
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—1.2%
Covidien plc		762,000		34,297,620
Household Products—2.1%
Kimberly-Clark Corp.		279,000		20,523,240
Procter & Gamble Co. (The) (a)		557,000		37,157,470
				57,680,710
Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders—1.0%
NRG Energy, Inc.* (a)		1,590,000		28,810,800
Industrial Conglomerates—4.0%
3M Co.		654,000		53,451,420
General Electric Co.		3,340,000		59,819,400
				113,270,820

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—99.0% of Net Assets—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Insurance—3.0%
Allstate Corp. (The)		1,065,000	$	29,191,650
Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.		1,720,000		54,386,400
				83,578,050
IT Services—3.2%
International Business Machines Corp.		293,500		53,968,780
Western Union Co.		1,995,000		36,428,700
				90,397,480
Life Sciences Tools & Services—0.9%
Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.*		581,000		26,127,570
Machinery—2.2%
Illinois Tool Works, Inc.		965,000		45,075,150
Ingersoll-Rand plc		500,000		15,235,000
				60,310,150
Media—6.1%
AMC Networks, Inc.—Class A* (a)		220,000		8,267,600
Cablevision Systems Corp.—Class A		790,000		11,233,800
Comcast Corp.—Class A (a)		950,000		22,524,500
Liberty Media Corp.—Liberty Capital— Class A*		153,168		11,954,762
Madison Square Garden, Inc. (The)— Class A*		270,000		7,732,800
Time Warner Cable, Inc.		718,000		45,643,260
Time Warner, Inc.		1,795,000		64,871,300
				172,228,022
Metals & Mining—0.8%
Nucor Corp. (a)		380,000		15,036,600
United States Steel Corp. (a)		305,000		8,070,300
				23,106,900
Multi-Utilities—0.5%
NiSource, Inc. (a)		540,000		12,857,400
Multiline Retail—1.0%
Kohl’s Corp.		560,000		27,636,000
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—15.4%
Chevron Corp.		1,002,500		106,666,000
EQT Corp.		221,000		12,108,590
Exxon Mobil Corp.		1,065,000		90,269,400
Murphy Oil Corp.		800,000		44,592,000
Newfield Exploration Co.* (a)		525,000		19,808,250
Royal Dutch Shell plc (ADR)		686,000		50,139,740
Spectra Energy Corp.		1,695,000		52,121,250
Total S.A. (ADR) (a)		1,090,000		55,709,900
				431,415,130
Paper & Forest Products—1.5%
International Paper Co.		1,422,300	$	42,100,080
Personal Products—0.8%
Avon Products, Inc.		1,230,000		21,488,100
Pharmaceuticals—7.5%
Johnson & Johnson		899,000		58,956,420
Merck & Co., Inc.		1,840,000		69,368,000
Pfizer, Inc.		3,810,000		82,448,400
				210,772,820
Real Estate Investment Trusts—1.4%
Weyerhaeuser Co.		2,100,000		39,207,000
Real Estate Management & Development—0.5%
St. Joe Co. (The)* (a)		950,000		13,927,000
Road & Rail—3.2%
Canadian Pacific Railway, Ltd. (a)		501,000		33,902,670
Union Pacific Corp.		521,500		55,247,710
				89,150,380
Software—2.5%
Microsoft Corp.		2,725,000		70,741,000
Specialty Retail—1.4%
Lowe’s Cos., Inc.		1,555,000		39,465,900
Wireless Telecommunication Services—0.5%
Sprint Nextel Corp.* (a)		5,485,000		12,834,900
Total Common Stocks (Cost $3,006,890,799)				2,777,467,322
Short-Term Investments—5.2%
Mutual Funds—5.2%
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (b)		121,770,081		121,770,081
T. Rowe Price Government Reserve Investment Fund**		23,614,286		23,614,286
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $145,384,367)				145,384,367
Total Investments—104.2% (Cost $3,152,275,166#)				2,922,851,689
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(4.2)%				(116,670,377	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	2,806,181,312

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

* Non-income producing security.

** Affiliated issuer. (See Note 8 in Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in the investment of affiliated issuers.)

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $3,174,201,041. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $99,194,064 and $(350,543,416), respectively, resulting in net unrealized depreciation of $(251,349,352) for federal income tax purpose.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities loaned was $133,475,914 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $121,770,081 and non-cash collateral with a value of $13,432,125. The cash collateral is invested in a money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The non-cash collateral received consists primarily of government securities and bank letters of credit, and are held for the benefit of the Portfolio at the Portfolio’s custodian. The Portfolio cannot repledge or resell this collateral. As such, this collateral is excluded from the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

(b) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities lending transactions.

(ADR)— An American Depositary Receipt is a certificate issued by a custodian bank representing the right to receive securities of the foreign issuer described. Trading on exchanges not located in the United States or Canada significantly influences the value of ADRs.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Total Common Stocks*	$	2,777,467,322	$	—	$	—	$	2,777,467,322
Total Short-Term Investments*		145,384,367		—		—		145,384,367
Total Investments	$	2,922,851,689	$	—	$	—	$	2,922,851,689

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)(b)	$	2,899,237,403
Affiliated investments at value (c)		23,614,286
Receivable for investments sold		8,790,030
Receivable for shares sold		123,436
Dividends receivable		5,782,287
Interest receivable		1,746
Total assets		2,937,549,188
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		7,007,970
Shares redeemed		919,554
Collateral for securities loaned		121,770,081
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		1,277,245
Distribution and service fees - Class B		185,776
Administration fees		11,393
Custodian and accounting fees		14,861
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		155,929
Total liabilities		131,367,876
Net Assets	$	2,806,181,312
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	3,514,858,766
Accumulated net realized loss		(527,253,467	)
Unrealized depreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		(229,422,679	)
Undistributed net investment income		47,998,692
Net Assets	$	2,806,181,312
Net Assets
Class A	$	1,922,565,881
Class B		883,615,431
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		91,543,603
Class B		42,335,887
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	21.00
Class B		20.87

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding affiliated investments, was $3,128,660,880.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $133,475,914.

(c) Identified cost of affiliated investments was $23,614,286.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	63,356,397
Interest from affiliated investments		20,063
Interest (b)		2,151,415
Total investment income		65,527,875
Expenses
Management fees		14,843,399
Administration fees		131,491
Custodian and accounting fees		192,386
Distribution and service fees - Class B		2,385,833
Audit and tax services		33,061
Legal		58,799
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Shareholder reporting		227,247
Insurance		13,573
Miscellaneous		27,985
Total expenses		17,949,198
Less management fee waiver		(511,226	)
Less broker commission recapture		(72,495	)
Net expenses		17,365,477
Net investment income		48,162,398
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments, Futures Contracts and Foreign Currency Transactions
Net realized gain on:
Investments		499,011,090
Futures contracts		469,728
Foreign currency transactions		2,986
Net realized gain on investments, futures contracts and foreign currency transactions		499,483,804
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on:
Investments		(714,272,213	)
Foreign currency transactions		798
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		(714,271,415	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments, futures contracts and foreign currency transactions		(214,787,611	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(166,625,213	)

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $892,067.

(b) Includes net income on securities loaned of $2,148,601.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	48,162,398		$	16,807,009
Net realized gain on investments, futures contracts and foreign currency transactions		499,483,804			130,264,197
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments and foreign currency transactions		(714,271,415	)		196,302,474
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations		(166,625,213	)		343,373,680
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(10,607,585	)		(14,568,737	)
Class B		(6,073,407	)		(9,790,143	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(16,680,992	)		(24,358,880	)
Net increase (decrease) in net assets from capital share transactions		709,363,633			(120,141,179	)
Net Increase in Net Assets		526,057,428			198,873,621
Net assets at beginning of period		2,280,123,884			2,081,250,263
Net assets at end of period	$	2,806,181,312		$	2,280,123,884
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	47,998,692		$	16,698,352

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		40,714,912		$	939,538,330			4,982,905		$	98,839,070
Reinvestments		465,449			10,607,585			692,430			14,568,737
Redemptions		(7,014,057	)		(150,255,769	)		(8,427,814	)		(169,378,024	)
Net increase (decrease)		34,166,304		$	799,890,146			(2,752,479	)	$	(55,970,217	)
Class B
Sales		3,733,516		$	78,833,716			3,669,582		$	72,229,007
Reinvestments		267,668			6,073,407			467,310			9,790,143
Redemptions		(8,201,717	)		(175,433,636	)		(7,435,290	)		(146,190,112	)
Net decrease		(4,200,533	)	$	(90,526,513	)		(3,298,398	)	$	(64,170,962	)
Increase (decrease) derived from capital shares transactions				$	709,363,633					$	(120,141,179	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	22.00		$	18.97		$	16.44		$	28.89		$	29.36
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.42			0.18			0.22			0.43			0.45
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(1.23	)		3.10			2.73			(9.93	)		0.73
Total from investment operations		(0.81	)		3.28			2.95			(9.50	)		1.18
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.19	)		(0.25	)		(0.42	)		(0.44	)		(0.31	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(2.51	)		(1.34	)
Total distributions		(0.19	)		(0.25	)		(0.42	)		(2.95	)		(1.65	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	21.00		$	22.00		$	18.97		$	16.44		$	28.89
Total Return (%)		(3.77	)		17.33			18.67			(36.19	)		4.01
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.58			0.55			0.56			0.53			0.52
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.56			0.55			0.56			0.52			0.51
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.96			0.92			1.38			1.92			1.55
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		103.5			53.9			83.5			112.2			84.1
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	1,922.6		$	1,262.3		$	1,140.8		$	1,546.8		$	2,608.8

	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	21.87		$	18.87		$	16.33		$	28.69		$	29.20
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.33			0.13			0.16			0.37			0.38
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(1.20	)		3.07			2.74			(9.86	)		0.71
Total from investment operations		(0.87	)		3.20			2.90			(9.49	)		1.09
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.13	)		(0.20	)		(0.36	)		(0.36	)		(0.26	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(2.51	)		(1.34	)
Total distributions		(0.13	)		(0.20	)		(0.36	)		(2.87	)		(1.60	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	20.87		$	21.87		$	18.87		$	16.33		$	28.69
Total Return (%)		(4.01	)		17.02			18.39			(36.33	)		3.72
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.83			0.80			0.81			0.78			0.77
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.81			0.80			0.81			0.77			0.76
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.52			0.67			1.00			1.66			1.31
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		103.5			53.9			83.5			112.2			84.1
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	883.6		$	1,017.8		$	940.4		$	837.4		$	1,546.7

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio (formerly Lord Abbett Growth and Income Portfolio) (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A and B Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to broker commission recapture, foreign currency transactions, deferred trustees’ compensation, capital loss carryforwards and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Securities Lending - The Portfolio may lend its portfolio securities to certain qualified brokers who borrow securities in order to complete certain securities transactions. By lending its portfolio securities, the Portfolio attempts to increase its net investment income through the receipt of income on the loaned securities. Any gain or loss in the market price of the loaned securities that might occur and any interest earned or dividends declared during the term of the loan would accrue to the account of the Portfolio.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

The Trust has entered into a securities lending arrangement with the custodian, State Street Bank and Trust Company (the “custodian”). Under this arrangement, the custodian is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral at least equal to 102% of the market value of the loaned securities (105% for foreign equity securities), at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities must be maintained for the duration of the loan. Cash collateral is generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The Navigator Portfolio is a registered money market fund which invests in a variety of high quality U.S. dollar-denominated instruments. If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower shall be required to deliver, by the close of business on the following business day, an additional amount of collateral so that the total amount of posted collateral equals at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of net income (income after the deduction of expenses and fees of the Navigator Portfolio) on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the custodian and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by U.S. Treasuries, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the custodian. The risks associated with lending portfolio securities include, but are not limited to, possible delays in receiving additional collateral or in the recovery of the loaned securities, possible loss of rights in the collateral should the borrower fail financially, as well as risk of loss in the value of the collateral or the value of the investments made with the collateral. Net interest income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2011 is disclosed in the footnotes to the Statement of Operations. Any outstanding loans by the Portfolio at December 31, 2011 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

Directed Brokerage Agreement - The Trust has entered into a directed brokerage arrangement with State Street Global Markets (“SSGM”). Under this arrangement, the Portfolio directs certain trades to SSGM in return for a recapture credit. SSGM issues a cash rebate to the Portfolio. Amounts paid to the Portfolio are shown separately as broker commission recapture on the Statement of Operations of the Portfolio. Additionally, these amounts have been excluded from the calculation of the ratio of net expenses to average net assets presented in the Financial Highlights for each share class.

Foreign Currency Translation - The books and records of the Portfolio are maintained in U.S. dollars. The values of securities, currencies and other assets and liabilities denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars are translated into U.S. dollars based upon foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period. Purchases and sales of investment securities, income and expenses are translated on the respective dates of such transactions. Since the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, it is not practical to isolate that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates from that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities. Such fluctuations are included in the net realized and unrealized gain or loss on investments.

Net realized foreign exchange gains or losses arise from activity in forward foreign currency exchange contracts, sales of foreign currency, currency gains or losses realized between the trade and settlement dates on securities transactions, and the difference between the amounts of dividends, interest, and foreign withholding taxes recorded by the Portfolio and the U.S. dollar equivalent of the amounts actually received or paid by the Portfolio. Gains and losses attributable to foreign currency exchange rates on sales of securities are recorded as Net realized gains and losses on investments. Net unrealized foreign exchange gains and losses arise from changes in the value of assets and liabilities, other than investment securities, resulting from changes in foreign exchange rates.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. (the “Subadviser”), effective May 1, 2011, for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. Prior to May 1, 2011, the Adviser had a subadvisory agreement with Lord, Abbett & Co. LLC for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

Under the term’s of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee at the annual rate of the Portfolio’s daily net assets that is calculated according to the fee schedule set forth in the table below. If the assets of the Portfolio cross a threshold in reverse (i.e., decline below a threshold), then the absolute dollar fee payable by the Portfolio to the Adviser shall not be more than the minimum fee payable at the immediately higher threshold. When the Portfolio’s assets cross a threshold in reverse, the fee payable to the Adviser shall be calculated according to the footnotes immediately following the table below.

Assets	Asset Range $0 to $100,000,0001			Asset Range $100,000,000 to $200,000,0002			Asset Range $200,000,000 to $500,000,0003			Asset Range $500,000,000 to $1,000,000,0004			Asset Range $1,000,000,000 And Up
First $50,000,000		0.750	%		0.650	%		0.620	%		0.595	%		0.570	%
Next $50,000,000		0.700	%		0.650	%		0.620	%		0.595	%		0.570	%
Next $100,000,000		N/A			0.650	%		0.620	%		0.595	%		0.570	%
Next $300,000,000		N/A			N/A			0.620	%		0.595	%		0.570	%
Next $500,000,000		N/A			N/A			N/A			0.570	%		0.570	%
Excess over $1,000,000,000		N/A			N/A			N/A			N/A			0.570	%

¹  When the Portfolio’s net assets decline below $100 million, the fee payable to the Adviser shall be the lower of (1) the fee on the Portfolio’s daily net assets calculated at 0.750% of the first $50 million of such assets plus 0.700% of such assets over $50 million up to $100 million and (2) the fee on $100 million calculated at a flat rate of 0.650%.

²  When the Portfolio’s net assets decline below $200 million but are over $100 million, the fee payable to the Adviser shall be the lower of (1) the fee on the Portfolio’s daily net assets calculated at a flat rate of 0.650% and (2) the fee on $200 million calculated at a flat rate of 0.620%.

³  When the Portfolio’s net assets decline below $500 million but are over $200 million, the fee payable to the Adviser shall be the lower of (1) the fee on the Portfolio’s daily net assets calculated at a flat rate of 0.620% and (2) the fee on $500 million calculated at a flat rate of 0.595%.

⁴  When the Portfolio’s net assets decline below $1 billion but are over $500 million, the fee payable to the Adviser shall be the lower of (1) the fee on the Portfolio’s daily net assets calculated at 0.595% of the first $500 million of such assets plus 0.570% of such assets over $500 million up to $1 billion and (2) the fee on $1 billion calculated at a flat rate of 0.570%.

For the year ended December 31, 2011, the Adviser earned management fees in the amount of $14,843,399 for managing the Portfolio.

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Prior to May 1, 2011, the Portfolio paid the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

% per annum	Average Daily Net Assets
0.60%	First $600 Million
0.55%	$600 Million to $1.1 Billion
0.50%	$1.1 Billion to $1.5 Billion
0.45%	Over $1.5 Billion

Management Fee Waiver - The Subadviser has agreed to a voluntary subadvisory fee waiver that applies if (i) assets under management by the Subadviser for the Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. (“MSF”) in the aggregate exceed $750,000,000, (ii) the Subadviser subadvises three or more portfolios of the Trust and MSF in the aggregate and (iii) at least one of those portfolios is a large cap domestic equity portfolio. The Adviser has voluntarily agreed to reduce its management fee for the Portfolio by the amount waived (if any) by the Subadviser for the Portfolio pursuant to this voluntary subadvisory fee waiver. Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as a management fee waiver in the Statement of Operations.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

The subadvisory fee waiver schedule for the period May 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011 was:

Percentage Fee Waiver	Combined Assets
0.0%	First $750 Million
5.0%	Next $750 Million
7.5%	Next $1.5 Billion
10.0%	Excess over $3 Billion

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Distribution Agreement and Plan - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A and Class B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B distribution plan provides that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B Shares. However, under the Class B distribution agreement, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B distribution plan are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B distribution plan and distribution agreement, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. as designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$—	$	3,529,374,887	$	—	$	2,760,846,434

During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio engaged in security purchase transactions with other affiliated portfolios. These purchase transactions amounted to $242,114,873. The Portfolio also engaged in security transactions with other accounts managed by T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. that amounted to $9,088,438 in purchases of investments which is included above.

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments

Futures Contracts - The Portfolio may buy and sell futures contracts (on recognized exchanges) as a hedge, to maintain investment exposure to a target asset class or to enhance return. The Portfolio may be subject to fluctuations in equity prices, interest rates, commodity prices and foreign currency exchange rates in the normal course of pursuing its investment objective. Futures contracts are standardized agreements to buy or sell a security, or deliver a final cash settlement price in connection with an index, interest rate, currency, or other asset. The Portfolio must deposit an amount (“initial margin”) equal to a certain percentage of the face value of the futures contract. The initial margin may be in the form of cash or securities which is returned when the Portfolio’s obligations under the contract have been satisfied. If cash is deposited as the initial margin, it is shown as “restricted cash” on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Futures contracts are marked-to-market daily and subsequent payments (“variation margin”) are made or received by the Portfolio depending on the daily fluctuations in the value of the futures contracts. These amounts are reflected as receivables or payables on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Risks of entering into futures contracts (and related options) include the possibility that the market for these instruments may be illiquid and that a change in the value of the contract or option may

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments - continued

not correlate perfectly with changes in the value of the underlying instrument. Futures contracts are exchange traded and the exchange’s clearinghouse, as counterparty to all exchange traded futures, guarantees the futures contracts against default.

During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio entered into equity index futures contracts which were subject to equity price risk. During the period April 28 through April 29, 2011, the Portfolio had bought and sold $559,976,322 in equity index futures contracts. At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not have any open futures contracts. For the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had realized gains in the amount of $469,728 which are shown under Net realized gain on futures contracts in the Statement of Operations.

6. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

7. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

8. Transactions in Securities of Affiliated Issuers

Security Description	Number of shares held at December 31, 2010		Shares purchased		Shares sold			Number of shares held at December 31, 2011		Interest earned from affiliates during the period
T. Rowe Price Government Reserve Investment Fund		—		311,791,822		(288,177,536	)		23,614,286	$	20,063

9. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income				Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2011		2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$	16,680,992	$	24,358,880	$	—	$	—	$	16,680,992	$	24,358,880

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income		Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Depreciation			Loss Carryforwards			Total
$	48,023,759	$	—	$	(251,348,554	)	$	(505,327,592	)	$	(708,652,387	)

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

9. Income Tax Information - continued

losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses.

As of December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and the pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards expiring on December 31, 2017 were $505,327,592.

10. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio (formerly named Lord Abbett Growth and Income Portfolio), one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statements of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodians and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 23, 2012

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the one-, three- and five-year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board also considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Russell 1000 Value Index, for the one-, three- and five- year periods ended September 30, 2011. The Board took into account the fact that the Portfolio’s previous sub-adviser was replaced effective May 2, 2011, and noted that performance prior to that date reflects the performance of the previous sub-adviser. The Board concluded that the Portfolio’s underperformance was being reasonably addressed and/or monitored.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to

25

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the median of the Expense Group, Expense Universe and Sub-advised Expense Universe. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were below the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Sub-Adviser voluntarily agreed to waive a portion of its sub-advisory fee on assets over a certain level and that the Adviser voluntarily agreed to waive its advisory fees in an amount equal to any waived sub-advisory fees. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules

26

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

With respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee and sub-advisory fee each contain breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board also noted that the management fee is below the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriate.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

27

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Managed by T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A, B, and E shares of the T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio returned -1.40%, -1.65%, and -1.63%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Russell Midcap Growth Index¹, returned -1.65%.

Market Environment/Conditions

Major U.S. stock market indexes moved in a wide trading range in 2011 but were ultimately little changed for the year. Market volatility was high, driven by economic and geopolitical concerns. As the year began, equities climbed as the U.S. economy showed signs of strengthening and the Federal Reserve was in the midst of purchasing $600 billion in Treasury securities through June to suppress longer-term interest rates and promote economic growth. The rally was supported by a two-year extension of the Bush-era tax cuts at the end of 2010, healthy corporate earnings, and merger activity. Shares reached new bull market highs by the end of April despite turmoil in various Middle East and North African countries and sharp increases in oil and other commodity prices.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

Stock selection within Information Technology was the primary contributor to relative outperformance, thanks to Motorola Mobility, Nuance Communications, and National Semiconductor. Motorola Mobility and National Semiconductor appreciated on merger and acquisition bids, while Nuance Communications, a developer of speech-recognition technology, rose on strong earnings and continued growth of mobile communications. Apple’s introduction of speech-dictation application SIRI raised the technology’s profile, and Nuance Communications’ focus on speech recognition makes it well positioned to benefit from its increasing demand.

The Information Technology sector is enjoying several positive trends, including the shift to mobile computing, increased online advertising and commerce, and the delivery of software and computing resources over the Internet. Our focus is on companies working to change the current landscape through innovative software, hardware, and technology platforms.

Favorable security choices as well as an overweight to Health Care also boosted relative results. Valeant Pharmaceuticals and Elan were the main drivers of outperformance. Despite uncertainties from both economic instability and the implementation of health care reform, the sector provides considerable investment opportunities. Positive long-term dynamics include shifting demographics, demand for higher quality of life and willingness to spend on health care accordingly, the pace of scientific advances, and prospects for safer and better drugs. We believe that companies developing new, innovative medical products or delivering high-quality, low-cost treatments are likely to see their stock prices rewarded.

Holdings in Industrials and Business Services also outpaced their benchmark peers, with Fastenal and Roper Industries among the main drivers of outperformance.

Stock choices in Materials were the largest relative detractors from returns. Performance of companies leveraged to gold diverged from gold prices, with shares of metals and mining companies falling more than physical gold. Investor concerns about a wide range of potential issues, including capital allocation, valuations, rising costs, political instability, additional government tax levies, and the desire for physical gold exerted pressure on the industry. The main detractors within the Portfolio were Agnico-Eagle Mines, HudBay Minerals, and Osisko Mining, which all succumbed to rising production costs and unexpected production slowdowns. The Materials sector does not possess the growth characteristics we seek and typically represents a small portion of the Portfolio’s investment. The sole industry within this sector with consistent, albeit small, portfolio exposure is metals and mining.

Our stock choices in Financials also weighed on relative results. Performance in Financials was impacted by holdings in Jones Lang LaSalle, Principal Financial Group, and TCF Financial, all of which suffered double-digit declines. This sector does not typically represent a major area of investment for the Portfolio. Our largest current exposure to Financials is in the insurance industry, which we believe will benefit from an improving pricing environment in addition to strong management teams. We hold several financial exchanges in the diversified financial services industry, and our capital markets holdings are differentiated businesses with strong franchises.

Consumer Discretionary group weighting negatively impacted results, although stock picks within the sector somewhat mitigated the relative detraction. We continue to focus on “category killer” firms that dominate their markets, and seek companies with strong brands and innovative managements that will prosper as they seize market share from less-nimble competitors. Our largest areas of investment are generally in hotels, restaurants and leisure, media, and specialty retail companies.

We favor well-run companies with exposure to strong and growing end-markets and shareholder-friendly management teams. We prefer companies with differentiated products, strong organic growth, and favorable competitive environments and look for strong brands, managements with a record of creating shareholder value, and sustainable business models.

Brian W.H. Berghuis, CFA, MBA, Portfolio Manager

T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Managed by T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Dollar General Corp.		2.0
Nuance Communications, Inc.		1.9
AMETEK, Inc.		1.9
Roper Industries, Inc.		1.7
IHS, Inc. - Class A		1.6
Gardner Denver, Inc.		1.5
DENTSPLY International, Inc.		1.4
Global Payments, Inc.		1.4
Calpine Corp.		1.4
Fastenal Co.		1.4

Top Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Non-Cyclical		21.1
Technology		17.4
Industrials		16.1
Cyclical		14.5
Communications		8.7
Energy		7.4
Financials		6.9
Cash & Cash Equivalents		3.8
Basic Materials		2.7
Utilities		1.4

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio managed by

T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. vs. Russell Midcap Growth Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 year		5 Year		10 Year
T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth
Portfolio—Class A		-1.40%		5.56%		3.83%
Class B		-1.65%		5.30%		3.57%
Class E		-1.63%		5.39%		3.65%
Russell Midcap Growth Index1		-1.65%		2.44%		5.29%

The performance of Class B shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹ The Russell Midcap Growth Index is an unmanaged measure of performance of those Russell Midcap companies (the 800 smallest companies in the Russell 1000 Index) with higher price-to-book ratios and higher forecasted growth values.

²“Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A(a)
Actual		0.76%	$	1,000.00	$	919.00	$	3.68
Hypothetical*		0.76%		1,000.00		1,021.37		3.87
Class B(a)
Actual		1.01%	$	1,000.00	$	917.70	$	4.88
Hypothetical*		1.01%		1,000.00		1,020.11		5.14
Class E(a)
Actual		0.91%	$	1,000.00	$	917.60	$	4.40
Hypothetical*		0.91%		1,000.00		1,020.61		4.63

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

(a) The annualized expense ratio reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 3 to the Financial Statements.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—95.5% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—2.7%
Goodrich Corp.		103,000	$	12,741,100
Rockwell Collins, Inc.		150,000		8,305,500
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc.—Class A*		54,000		1,122,120
Textron, Inc. (a)		836,000		15,457,640
				37,626,360
Air Freight & Logistics—0.4%
UTI Worldwide, Inc. (a)		396,000		5,262,840
Automobiles—0.4%
Harley-Davidson, Inc.		120,000		4,664,400
Tesla Motors, Inc.* (a)		50,000		1,428,000
				6,092,400
Beverages—0.1%
Hansen Natural Corp.*		8,000		737,120
Biotechnology—2.6%
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.*		161,000		11,511,500
Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.* (a)		138,000		1,570,440
Human Genome Sciences, Inc.* (a)		429,000		3,170,310
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.* (a)		197,000		10,919,710
Theravance, Inc.* (a)		246,000		5,436,600
Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.*		100,000		3,321,000
				35,929,560
Capital Markets—1.2%
Charles Schwab Corp. (The)		108,000		1,216,080
Eaton Vance Corp. (a)		199,000		4,704,360
TD Ameritrade Holding Corp.		704,000		11,017,600
				16,938,040
Chemicals—0.6%
Rockwood Holdings, Inc.*		208,000		8,188,960
Commercial Banks—0.5%
TCF Financial Corp. (a)		657,000		6,780,240
Communications Equipment—1.6%
Aruba Networks, Inc.* (a)		74,000		1,370,480
JDS Uniphase Corp.*		1,183,000		12,350,520
Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc.*		239,000		9,273,200
				22,994,200
Construction & Engineering—1.2%
Quanta Services, Inc.*		780,000		16,801,200
Diversified Consumer Services—0.5%
Weight Watchers International, Inc. (a)		119,000	$	6,546,190
Diversified Financial Services—2.2%
CBOE Holdings, Inc. (a)		298,000		7,706,280
IntercontinentalExchange, Inc.*		60,000		7,233,000
MSCI, Inc.—Class A* (a)		478,000		15,740,540
				30,679,820
Electrical Equipment—5.1%
Acuity Brands, Inc. (a)		115,000		6,095,000
AMETEK, Inc. (a)		622,000		26,186,200
Babcock & Wilcox Co.*		632,000		15,256,480
Roper Industries, Inc. (a)		271,000		23,541,770
				71,079,450
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—2.4%
Dolby Laboratories, Inc.—Class A*		222,000		6,773,220
FLIR Systems, Inc. (a)		404,000		10,128,280
Trimble Navigation, Ltd.*		399,000		17,316,600
				34,218,100
Energy Equipment & Services—2.3%
FMC Technologies, Inc.*		239,000		12,482,970
McDermott International, Inc.*		1,021,000		11,751,710
Trican Well Service, Ltd.		471,000		8,129,075
				32,363,755
Food & Staples Retailing—1.8%
Shoppers Drug Mart Corp.		452,000		18,287,142
Whole Foods Market, Inc.		100,000		6,958,000
				25,245,142
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—5.1%
C.R. Bard, Inc.		159,000		13,594,500
CareFusion Corp.*		518,000		13,162,380
Cooper Cos., Inc. (The)		80,000		5,641,600
DENTSPLY International, Inc. (a)		580,000		20,294,200
Edwards Lifesciences Corp.*		100,000		7,070,000
IDEXX Laboratories, Inc.* (a)		162,000		12,467,520
				72,230,200
Health Care Providers & Services—2.9%
Henry Schein, Inc.* (a)		254,000		16,365,220
Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings*		102,000		8,768,940
MEDNAX, Inc.*		103,000		7,417,030
Universal Health Services, Inc.—Class B (a)		199,000		7,733,140
				40,284,330

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Health Care Technology—1.3%
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc.*		420,000	$	7,954,800
SXC Health Solutions Corp.*		191,000		10,787,680
				18,742,480
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—3.9%
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.* (a)		28,000		9,456,720
Choice Hotels International, Inc. (a)		203,000		7,724,150
Marriott International, Inc.-Class A		477,000		13,914,090
Panera Bread Co.—Class A* (a)		68,000		9,618,600
Starbucks Corp.		120,000		5,521,200
Tim Hortons, Inc.		175,000		8,473,500
				54,708,260
Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders—1.4%
Calpine Corp.*		1,198,000		19,563,340
Insurance—2.8%
Aon Corp.		161,000		7,534,800
HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc.		283,000		7,782,500
Principal Financial Group, Inc.		281,000		6,912,600
W.R. Berkley Corp.		279,000		9,594,810
Willis Group Holdings plc		204,000		7,915,200
				39,739,910
Internet & Catalog Retail—1.0%
Liberty Media Corp.—Interactive—Class A*		439,000		7,118,385
Netflix, Inc.*		95,000		6,582,550
				13,700,935
Internet Software & Services—0.8%
Akamai Technologies, Inc.*		199,000		6,423,720
Rackspace Hosting, Inc.* (a)		120,000		5,161,200
				11,584,920
IT Services—5.6%
Amdocs, Ltd.*		539,000		15,377,670
Fiserv, Inc.*		259,000		15,213,660
Gartner, Inc.—Class A*		482,000		16,759,140
Global Payments, Inc. (a)		419,000		19,852,220
Western Union Co.		594,000		10,846,440
				78,049,130
Life Sciences Tools & Services—1.5%
Bruker Corp.*		595,000		7,389,900
Covance, Inc.* (a)		316,000		14,447,520
				21,837,420
Machinery—4.8%
Crane Co. (a)		118,000	$	5,511,780
Gardner Denver, Inc. (a)		267,000		20,575,020
IDEX Corp. (a)		378,000		14,027,580
Pall Corp.		319,000		18,230,850
WABCO Holdings, Inc.*		209,000		9,070,600
				67,415,830
Media—2.2%
Discovery Communications, Inc.—Class A*		142,000		5,817,740
Discovery Communications, Inc.—Class C*		239,000		9,010,300
Lamar Advertising Co.—Class A* (a)		440,000		12,100,000
Liberty Media Corp.—Liberty Capital—Class A*		48,000		3,746,400
				30,674,440
Metals & Mining—2.1%
Agnico-Eagle Mines, Ltd.		279,000		10,133,280
Franco-Nevada Corp.		279,000		10,640,331
HudBay Minerals, Inc.		393,000		3,878,910
Osisko Mining Corp.*		508,000		4,915,887
				29,568,408
Multiline Retail—2.8%
Dollar General Corp.*		677,000		27,851,780
Kohl’s Corp.		240,000		11,844,000
				39,695,780
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—5.9%
CONSOL Energy, Inc.		426,000		15,634,200
Continental Resources, Inc.* (a)		120,000		8,005,200
EQT Corp.		249,000		13,642,710
Laredo Petroleum Holdings, Inc.* (a)		78,500		1,750,550
QEP Resources, Inc.		319,000		9,346,700
Range Resources Corp.		241,000		14,927,540
SM Energy Co.		160,000		11,696,000
Ultra Petroleum Corp.*		271,000		8,029,730
				83,032,630
Pharmaceuticals—1.4%
Elan Corp. plc (ADR)*		642,000		8,821,080
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.*		242,000		11,298,980
				20,120,060

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Professional Services—3.5%
IHS, Inc.—Class A*		267,000	$	23,004,720
Manpower, Inc.		358,000		12,798,500
Robert Half International, Inc.		156,000		4,439,760
Verisk Analytics, Inc.—Class A*		240,000		9,631,200
				49,874,180
Real Estate Management & Development—0.4%
Jones Lang LaSalle, Inc.		94,000		5,758,440
Road & Rail—1.3%
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.*		882,000		10,337,040
Kansas City Southern*		118,000		8,025,180
				18,362,220
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—6.1%
Altera Corp.		256,000		9,497,600
Atmel Corp.* (a)		1,276,000		10,335,600
Cree, Inc.* (a)		120,000		2,644,800
Intersil Corp.—Class A		643,000		6,712,920
Marvell Technology Group, Ltd.*		782,000		10,830,700
Microchip Technology, Inc. (a)		243,000		8,901,090
NVIDIA Corp.*		720,000		9,979,200
PMC-Sierra, Inc.*		268,000		1,476,680
Silicon Laboratories, Inc.* (a)		240,000		10,420,800
Xilinx, Inc.		469,000		15,036,140
				85,835,530
Software—6.7%
Ariba, Inc.*		237,000		6,654,960
Concur Technologies, Inc.* (a)		222,000		11,275,380
FactSet Research Systems, Inc. (a)		116,000		10,124,480
Informatica Corp.*		100,000		3,693,000
MICROS Systems, Inc.* (a)		235,000		10,946,300
Nuance Communications, Inc.*		1,043,000		26,241,880
Red Hat, Inc.*		358,000		14,781,820
Rovi Corp.* (a)		120,000		2,949,600
TIBCO Software, Inc.*		316,000		7,555,560
				94,222,980
Specialty Retail—3.2%
Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.*		152,000		8,811,440
CarMax, Inc.* (a)		542,000		16,520,160
O’Reilly Automotive, Inc.*		240,000		19,188,000
				44,519,600
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—0.7%
Michael Kors Holdings, Ltd.*		329,258		8,075,052
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—(Continued)
Michael Kors Holdings, Ltd.* (b)		70,600	$	1,923,850
				9,998,902
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance—0.4%
BankUnited, Inc. (a)		236,000		5,189,640
Trading Companies & Distributors—2.1%
Air Lease Corp.* (a)		334,000		7,919,140
Fastenal Co.		441,000		19,232,010
MSC Industrial Direct Co., Inc.—Class A (a)		30,000		2,146,500
				29,297,650
Total Common Stocks (Cost $1,130,859,013)				1,341,490,592
Preferred Stocks—0.1%
Internet Software & Services—0.1%
Workday, Inc.* (b)		64,415		854,143
Total Preferred Stocks (Cost $854,143)				854,143
Convertible Preferred Stocks—0.6%
Internet Software & Services—0.6%
Coupon.Com, (Series B)* (b)		592,662		3,255,700
LivingSocial, Inc., (Series E)* (b)		757,490		5,825,098
Total Convertible Preferred Stocks (Cost $7,536,276)				9,080,798
Short-Term Investments—16.0%
Mutual Funds—16.0%
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (c)		171,033,902		171,033,902
T. Rowe Price Government Reserve Investment Fund**		52,965,574		52,965,574
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $223,999,476)				223,999,476
Total Investments—112.2% (Cost $1,363,248,908#)				1,575,425,009
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(12.2)%				(171,352,993	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	1,404,072,016

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

* Non-income producing security.

** Affiliated Issuer. (See Note 8 to Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in the investments of affiliated issuers.)

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $1,375,440,682. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $279,750,528 and $(79,766,201), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $199,984,327 for federal income tax purposes.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities loaned was $165,821,701 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $171,033,902. The cash collateral is invested in a money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian.

(b) Security was valued in good faith under procedures approved by the Board of Trustees.

(c) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities lending transactions.

(ADR)— An American Depositary Receipt is a certificate issued by a custodian bank representing the right to receive securities of the foreign issuer described. Trading on exchanges not located in the United States or Canada significantly influences the value of ADRs.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Common Stocks
Aerospace & Defense	$	37,626,360	$	—	$	—	$	37,626,360
Air Freight & Logistics		5,262,840		—		—		5,262,840
Automobiles		6,092,400		—		—		6,092,400
Beverages		737,120		—		—		737,120
Biotechnology		35,929,560		—		—		35,929,560
Capital Markets		16,938,040		—		—		16,938,040
Chemicals		8,188,960		—		—		8,188,960
Commercial Banks		6,780,240		—		—		6,780,240
Communications Equipment		22,994,200		—		—		22,994,200
Construction & Engineering		16,801,200		—		—		16,801,200
Diversified Consumer Services		6,546,190		—		—		6,546,190
Diversified Financial Services		30,679,820		—		—		30,679,820
Electrical Equipment		71,079,450		—		—		71,079,450
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components		34,218,100		—		—		34,218,100
Energy Equipment & Services		32,363,755		—		—		32,363,755
Food & Staples Retailing		25,245,142		—		—		25,245,142
Health Care Equipment & Supplies		72,230,200		—		—		72,230,200
Health Care Providers & Services		40,284,330		—		—		40,284,330
Health Care Technology		18,742,480		—		—		18,742,480
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure		54,708,260		—		—		54,708,260
Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders		19,563,340		—		—		19,563,340
Insurance		39,739,910		—		—		39,739,910
Internet & Catalog Retail		13,700,935		—		—		13,700,935
Internet Software & Services		11,584,920		—		—		11,584,920
IT Services		78,049,130		—		—		78,049,130
Life Sciences Tools & Services		21,837,420		—		—		21,837,420
Machinery		67,415,830		—		—		67,415,830
Media		30,674,440		—		—		30,674,440
Metals & Mining		29,568,408		—		—		29,568,408
Multiline Retail		39,695,780		—		—		39,695,780
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels		83,032,630		—		—		83,032,630
Pharmaceuticals		20,120,060		—		—		20,120,060

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY—(Continued)

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Professional Services	$	49,874,180	$	—	$	—	$	49,874,180
Real Estate Management & Development		5,758,440		—		—		5,758,440
Road & Rail		18,362,220		—		—		18,362,220
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment		85,835,530		—		—		85,835,530
Software		94,222,980		—		—		94,222,980
Specialty Retail		44,519,600		—		—		44,519,600
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods		1,923,850		8,075,052		—		9,998,902
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance		5,189,640		—		—		5,189,640
Trading Companies & Distributors		29,297,650		—		—		29,297,650
Total Common Stocks		1,333,415,540		8,075,052		—		1,341,490,592
Total Preferred Stock*		—		—		854,143		854,143
Total Convertible Preferred Stocks*		—		—		9,080,798		9,080,798
Total Short-Term Investments *		223,999,476		—		—		223,999,476
Total Investments	$	1,557,415,016	$	8,075,052	$	9,934,941	$	1,575,425,009

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

Following is a reconciliation of Level 3 assets for which significant unobservable inputs were used to determine fair value:

Investments in Securities	Balance as of December 31, 2010		Change in Unrealized Appreciation		Purchases		Balance as of December 31, 2011		Change in unrealized Appreciation for investments Still Held  at December 31, 2011
Preferred Stocks
Internet Software & Services	$	—	$	—	$	854,143	$	854,143	$	—
Convertible Preferred Stock
Internet Software & Services		—		1,544,522		7,536,276		9,080,798		1,544,522
Total	$	—	$	1,544,522	$	8,390,419	$	9,934,941	$	1,544,522

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)(b)	$	1,522,459,435
Affiliated investments at value (c)		52,965,574
Receivable for investments sold		2,734,686
Receivable for shares sold		240,900
Dividends receivable		420,208
Interest receivable		7,073
Total assets		1,578,827,876
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		1,929,026
Shares redeemed		611,662
Collateral for securities loaned		171,033,902
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		862,317
Distribution and service fees - Class B		174,071
Distribution and service fees - Class E		2,343
Administration fees		5,945
Custodian and accounting fees		14,983
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		96,544
Total liabilities		174,755,860
Net Assets	$	1,404,072,016
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	1,009,378,415
Accumulated net realized gain		185,640,136
Unrealized appreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		212,176,772
Accumulated net investment loss		(3,123,307	)
Net Assets	$	1,404,072,016
Net Assets
Class A	$	565,833,868
Class B		819,968,870
Class E		18,269,278
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		59,383,966
Class B		88,633,522
Class E		1,950,989
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	9.53
Class B		9.25
Class E		9.36

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding affiliated investments, was $1,310,283,334.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $165,821,701.

(c) Identified cost of affiliated investments was $52,965,574.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	7,493,642
Interest (b)		856,382
Interest from affiliated investments		82,640
Total investment income		8,432,664
Expenses
Management fees		11,537,563
Administration fees		77,337
Custodian and accounting fees		187,614
Distribution and service fees - Class B		2,131,821
Distribution and service fees - Class E		32,437
Audit and tax services		33,078
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Shareholder reporting		130,678
Insurance		9,290
Miscellaneous		17,185
Total expenses		14,225,713
Less management fee waiver		(390,398	)
Less broker commission recapture		(37,061	)
Net expenses		13,798,254
Net investment loss		(5,365,590	)
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments, Futures Contracts and Foreign Currency Transactions
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments		195,015,485
Futures contracts		843,710
Foreign currency transactions		(57,831	)
Net realized gain on investments, futures contracts and foreign currency transactions		195,801,364
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on:
Investments		(197,462,971	)
Foreign currency transactions		230
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		(197,462,741	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments, futures contracts and foreign currency transactions		(1,661,377	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(7,026,967	)

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $144,981.

(b) Includes net income on securities loaned of $822,398.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment loss	$	(5,365,590	)	$	(2,748,272	)
Net realized gain on investments, futures contracts and foreign currency transactions		195,801,364			76,380,300
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments and foreign currency transactions		(197,462,741	)		258,202,845
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations		(7,026,967	)		331,834,873
Distributions to Shareholders
From net realized gains
Class A		(19,985,267	)		—
Class B		(22,409,779	)		—
Class E		(585,909	)		—
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(42,980,955	)		—
Net increase (decrease) in net assets from capital share transactions		(131,687,341	)		104,243,629
Net Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets		(181,695,263	)		436,078,502
Net assets at beginning of period		1,585,767,279			1,149,688,777
Net assets at end of period	$	1,404,072,016		$	1,585,767,279
Accumulated net investment loss at end of period	$	(3,123,307	)	$	(2,695,150	)

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		4,323,293		$	44,402,160			12,130,789		$	104,608,215
Reinvestments		1,897,936			19,985,267			—			—
Redemptions		(24,048,951	)		(253,894,579	)		(10,677,049	)		(89,400,980	)
Net increase (decrease)		(17,827,722	)	$	(189,507,152	)		1,453,740		$	15,207,235
Class B
Sales		18,582,713		$	182,210,930			21,237,106		$	176,915,008
Reinvestments		2,188,455			22,409,779			—			—
Redemptions		(14,758,472	)		(141,171,172	)		(10,436,882	)		(84,633,830	)
Net increase		6,012,696		$	63,449,537			10,800,224		$	92,281,178
Class E
Sales		303,004		$	3,050,145			501,243		$	4,198,021
Reinvestments		56,555			585,909			—			—
Redemptions		(930,868	)		(9,265,780	)		(886,297	)		(7,442,805	)
Net decrease		(571,309	)	$	(5,629,726	)		(385,054	)	$	(3,244,784	)
Increase (decrease) derived from capital shares transactions				$	(131,687,341	)				$	104,243,629

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	9.90		$	7.73		$	5.30		$	9.83		$	8.76
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (loss)(a)		(0.02	)		(0.01	)		(0.00	)+		0.01			0.02
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.09	)		2.18			2.43			(3.54	)		1.50
Total from investment operations		(0.11	)		2.17			2.43			(3.53	)		1.52
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.01	)		(0.02	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.26	)		0.00			0.00			(0.99	)		(0.43	)
Total distributions		(0.26	)		0.00			0.00			(1.00	)		(0.45	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	9.53		$	9.90		$	7.73		$	5.30		$	9.83
Total Return (%)		(1.40	)		28.07			45.85			(39.62	)		17.85
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.78			0.79			0.79			0.78			0.80
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.76			0.77			0.77			0.76			0.78
Ratio of net investment income (loss) to average net assets (%)		(0.21	)		(0.10	)		(0.05	)		0.09			0.16
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		38.2			27.6			31.5			36.2			35.5
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	565.8		$	764.5		$	585.5		$	347.4		$	524.2

	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	9.64		$	7.55		$	5.19		$	9.66		$	8.62
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment loss(a)		(0.04	)		(0.03	)		(0.02	)		(0.01	)		(0.01	)
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.09	)		2.12			2.38			(3.47	)		1.48
Total from investment operations		(0.13	)		2.09			2.36			(3.48	)		1.47
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		0.00			0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.00	)++
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.26	)		0.00			0.00			(0.99	)		(0.43	)
Total distributions		(0.26	)		0.00			0.00			(0.99	)		(0.43	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	9.25		$	9.64		$	7.55		$	5.19		$	9.66
Total Return (%)		(1.65	)		27.68			45.47			(39.75	)		17.64
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.03			1.04			1.04			1.03			1.05
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		1.01			1.02			1.02			1.01			1.03
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		(0.45	)		(0.33	)		(0.30	)		(0.16	)		(0.08	)
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		38.2			27.6			31.5			36.2			35.5
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	820.0		$	796.7		$	542.0		$	314.0		$	523.0

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	9.75		$	7.62		$	5.24		$	9.72		$	8.67
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (loss)(a)		(0.04	)		(0.02	)		(0.01	)		(0.01	)		0.00	+
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.09	)		2.15			2.39			(3.48	)		1.49
Total from investment operations		(0.13	)		2.13			2.38			(3.49	)		1.49
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		0.00			0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.01	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.26	)		0.00			0.00			(0.99	)		(0.43	)
Total distributions		(0.26	)		0.00			0.00			(0.99	)		(0.44	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	9.36		$	9.75		$	7.62		$	5.24		$	9.72
Total Return (%)		(1.63	)		27.95			45.42			(39.60	)		17.62
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.93			0.94			0.94			0.93			0.95
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.91			0.92			0.92			0.91			0.93
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		(0.36	)		(0.27	)		(0.19	)		(0.07	)		0.00	+++
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		38.2			27.6			31.5			36.2			35.5
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	18.3		$	24.6		$	22.2		$	17.3		$	37.3

+ Net investment income was less than $0.01 per share.

++ Distributions from net investment income were less than $0.01.

+++ Ratio of net investment income to average net assets was less than $0.01.

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A, B and E Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to broker commission recapture, foreign currency transaction, passive foreign investment companies (PFICs), deferred trustees’ compensation, capital loss carryforwards, and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Securities Lending - The Portfolio may lend its portfolio securities to certain qualified brokers who borrow securities in order to complete certain securities transactions. By lending its portfolio securities, the Portfolio attempts to increase its net investment income through the receipt of income on the loaned securities. Any gain or loss in the market price of the loaned securities that might occur and any interest earned or dividends declared during the term of the loan would accrue to the account of the Portfolio.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

The Trust has entered into a securities lending arrangement with the custodian, State Street Bank and Trust Company (the “custodian”). Under this arrangement, the custodian is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral at least equal to 102% of the market value of the loaned securities (105% for foreign equity securities), at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities must be maintained for the duration of the loan. Cash collateral is generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The Navigator Portfolio is a registered money market fund which invests in a variety of high quality U.S. dollar-denominated instruments. If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower shall be required to deliver, by the close of business on the following business day, an additional amount of collateral so that the total amount of posted collateral equals at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of net income (income after the deduction of expenses and fees of the Navigator Portfolio) on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the custodian and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by U.S. Treasuries, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the custodian. The risks associated with lending portfolio securities include, but are not limited to, possible delays in receiving additional collateral or in the recovery of the loaned securities, possible loss of rights in the collateral should the borrower fail financially, as well as risk of loss in the value of the collateral or the value of the investments made with the collateral. Net interest income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2011 is disclosed in the footnotes to the Statement of Operations. Any outstanding loans by the Portfolio at December 31, 2011 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

Directed Brokerage Agreement - The Trust has entered into a directed brokerage arrangement with State Street Global Markets (“SSGM”). Under this arrangement, the Portfolio directs certain trades to SSGM in return for a recapture credit. SSGM issues a cash rebate to the Portfolio. Amounts paid to the Portfolio are shown separately as broker commission recapture on the Statement of Operations of the Portfolio. Additionally, these amounts have been excluded from the calculation of the ratio of net expenses to average net assets presented in the Financial Highlights for each share class.

Foreign Currency Translation - The books and records of the Portfolio are maintained in U.S. dollars. The values of securities, currencies and other assets and liabilities denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars are translated into U.S. dollars based upon foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period. Purchases and sales of investment securities, income and expenses are translated on the respective dates of such transactions. Since the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, it is not practical to isolate that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates from that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities. Such fluctuations are included in the net realized and unrealized gain or loss on investments.

Net realized foreign exchange gains or losses arise from activity in forward foreign currency exchange contracts, sales of foreign currency, currency gains or losses realized between the trade and settlement dates on securities transactions, and the difference between the amounts of dividends, interest, and foreign withholding taxes recorded by the Portfolio and the U.S. dollar equivalent of the amounts actually received or paid by the Portfolio. Gains and losses attributable to foreign currency exchange rates on sales of securities are recorded as Net realized gains and losses on investments. Net unrealized foreign exchange gains and losses arise from changes in the value of assets and liabilities, other than investment securities, resulting from changes in foreign exchange rates.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year  ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$11,537,563		0.75	%	All

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Management Fee Waiver - Effective February 17, 2005, the Subadviser has agreed to a voluntary subadvisory fee waiver that applies if (i) assets under management by the Subadviser for the Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. (“MSF”) in the aggregate exceed $750,000,000, (ii) the Subadviser subadvises three or more portfolios of the Trust and MSF in the aggregate and (iii) at least one of those portfolios is a large cap domestic equity portfolio. The Adviser has voluntarily agreed to reduce its management fee for the Portfolio by the amount waived (if any) by the Subadviser for the Portfolio pursuant to this voluntary subadvisory fee waiver. Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as a management fee waiver in the Statement of Operations.

The subadvisory fee waiver schedule for the period January 1 through December 31, 2011 was:

Percentage Fee Waiver	Combined Assets
0.0%	First $750 Million
5.0%	Next $750 Million
7.5%	Next $1.5 Billion
10.0%	Excess over $3 Billion

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Distribution Agreements and Plans - The Trust has distribution agreements with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A, Class B and Class E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B and Class E distribution plans provide that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% and 0.25%, respectively, of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B and Class E Shares. However, under the Class B and Class E distribution agreements, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B and Class E distribution plans are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% and 0.15% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B and Class E Shares, respectively. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B and Class E distribution plans and distribution agreements, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B and Class E Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. as designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$—	$	563,639,195	$	—	$	721,322,513

During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio engaged in security sale transactions with other affiliated portfolios. These sale transactions amounted to $58,389,542 and resulted in a realized gain of $20,965,599. The Portfolio also engaged in security transactions with other accounts managed by T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. that amounted to $107,980 in Purchases and $474,912 in Sales of investments which are included above.

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments

Futures Contracts - The Portfolio may buy and sell futures contracts (on recognized exchanges) as a hedge, to maintain investment exposure to a target asset class or to enhance return. The Portfolio may be subject to fluctuations in equity prices, interest rates, commodity prices and foreign currency exchange rates in the normal course of pursuing its investment objective. Futures contracts are standardized agreements to buy or sell a security, or deliver a final cash settlement price in connection with an index, interest rate, currency, or other asset. The Portfolio must deposit an amount (“initial margin”) equal to a certain percentage of the face value of the futures contract. The initial margin may be in the form of cash or securities which is returned when the Portfolio’s obligations under the contract have been satisfied. If cash is deposited as the initial margin, it is shown as “restricted cash” on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Futures contracts are marked-to-market daily and subsequent payments (“variation margin”) are made or received by the Portfolio depending on the daily fluctuations in the value of the futures contracts. These amounts are reflected as receivables or payables on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Risks of entering into futures contracts (and related options) include the possibility that the market for these instruments may be illiquid and that a change in the value of the contract or option may not correlate perfectly with changes in the value of the underlying instrument. Futures contracts are exchange traded and the exchange’s clearinghouse, as counterparty to all exchange traded futures, guarantees the futures contracts against default.

During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio entered into equity index futures contracts which were subject to equity price risk. During the period April 26 through April 28, 2011, the Portfolio had bought and sold $117,190,779 in equity index futures contracts. At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not have any open futures contracts. For the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had realized gains in the amount of $843,710 which are shown under Net realized gain on futures contracts in the Statement of Operations.

6. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

7. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

8. Transactions in Securities of Affiliated Issuers

Security Description	Number of shares held at December 31, 2010		Shares purchased		Shares sold			Number of shares held at December 31, 2011		Interest earned from affiliates during the period
T. Rowe Price Government Reserve		77,240,903		229,830,968		(254,106,297	)		52,965,574	$	82,640
Investment Fund

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

9. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$—	$	—	$	42,980,955	$	—	$	42,980,955	$	—

There were no distributions paid for the year ending December 31, 2010.

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards		Total
$22,100,359	$	170,822,675	$	201,795,634	$	—	$	394,718,668

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses. At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not have any capital loss carryforwards.

10. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodians and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 23, 2012

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

25

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and Lipper Index for the one- year period ended June 30, 2011, and outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the three- and five-year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board also considered that the Portfolio outperformed its benchmark, the Russell Midcap Growth Index, for the one-, three- and five- year periods ended September 30, 2011. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance, including with respect to its more recent performance. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s overall performance was satisfactory.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to

26

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the median of the Expense Group, Expense Universe and Sub-advised Expense Universe. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were above the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also took into account that the Adviser and the Sub-Adviser were voluntarily waiving a portion of their fees. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

27

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee and sub-advisory fee do not contain breakpoints. The Board also noted that the management fee is above the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board took into account the fact that the Adviser is voluntarily waiving a portion of its advisory fee. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolio’s current size and potential growth on its performance and fees. The Board noted management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s advisory fee structure. The Board also noted that if the Portfolio’s assets increase over time, the Portfolio may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio was reasonable and appropriate.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

28

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio

Managed by Third Avenue Management LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A and B shares of the Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio returned -8.70% and -8.98%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmarks, the Russell 2000 Value Index¹ and the Dow Jones U.S. Small Cap Total Stock Market Index², returned -5.50% and -2.91%, respectively.

Market Environment / Conditions

Markets were especially volatile throughout the year, with the S&P 500 moving more than 2% a day on more than 60 separate trading days. Macro concerns about the United States (“U.S.”), Europe and China also drove markets downward for much of the year, with the exception of a fourth quarter partial recovery.

Portfolio Review / Year-End Positioning

Over the course of the year, the Portfolio lagged the Russell 2000 Value Index¹, in part because of its relative underweight in Financials and elevated cash levels (currently around 13%), both of which diminished the effects of the fourth quarter rally on our portfolio.

Financials delivered strong performance for the Russell 2000 Value Index¹ during the fourth quarter. We have been cautious with regards to Financial sector stocks, largely preferring atypical companies (like services firm Broadridge Financial) to more traditional banks, which still largely have opaque balance sheets and booby-trapped loan books. Although this caution did not serve us well during the fourth quarter, we believe it is justified by continued balance sheet risks, still evolving regulatory environment, and unclear prospects for growth and future profitability.

Cash levels were above the more usual 5-10% range due to a number of resource conversions (defined broadly as corporate events such as mergers and acquisitions, share buybacks, and dividend payments) throughout the year, with cash not being redeployed faster than the number of takeovers. Cash reached a peak of 20% in the Portfolio in June 2011, when takeover activity was highest and the Portfolio experienced a large inflow of capital. The reduction in the cash position between June and the end of the year was the result of our putting the money to work in new and existing investments during periods of volatile pricing in August and September. Still, we invested cautiously and the cash was a drag on returns in an up market.

The Portfolio’s stock selection in the U.S. (approximately 82% of the Portfolio, on average) was the largest performance detractor, collectively delivering a -5.6% return. The 5% (average weighting) of the Portfolio invested in Hong Kong was the next most significant detractor, delivering a collective -29.3% return.

Athletic shoe and apparel maker K-Swiss was the Portfolio’s largest detractor, returning -77.5% during 2011. Though the company remains well financed with a net cash balance sheet, it has been dealing with excessive inventory levels. We sold our investment in K-Swiss during the fourth quarter after determining that the business, which has struggled mightily over the past year, may have become permanently impaired.

Skyline Corp. produces manufactured homes and building units as well as towable recreational vehicles. Its share price dropped -82.9% during 2011 and it was the Portfolio’s second largest detractor. The stock’s decline appears to have been driven by the company’s $6.8 million loss for the quarter ended August 31, 2011. Owing to these disappointing results, we reduced our position by about one third. Recently, the company announced improved results for its quarter ended November 30, 2011. Sales increased by 24%, and cash and investments increased slightly to $39 million. The company remains debt free and is attractively priced at a 6% discount to cash and investments and a 44% discount to book value. Additionally, manufactured housing industry shipments have increased for three straight months (through October), and the company would be well positioned to generate continued improved results if the industry recovery continues, justifying our maintenance of a toehold position in the stock.

Finally, Wheelock & Co. (Hong Kong) a real estate and investment company, was the third most significant detractor, with its stock price returning -38.5% during the year. The stock price decline during the third quarter appears to have been driven by tightening measures being imposed on the residential property markets in both Hong Kong and China. Nevertheless, Wheelock’s business fundamentals remain healthy, owing to their exposure to the Hong Kong commercial real estate market, which remains strong. The company has a very strong financial position with a 6.3% net debt to capital ratio as of June 30, 2011, and the common stock is very attractively priced at a 65% discount to reported book value, which is near the high end of its historical range.

The year’s volatility provided us with ample opportunity to enhance the Portfolio with new investments. In all, we added 28 new equity positions to the Portfolio, from a diverse group of industries.

During the year we sold 11 securities, including several due to resource conversions. Our stake in Parco Ltd. was purchased by a private buyer at a substantial premium to its market price and at a profit to the Portfolio. We sold Pharmaceutical Product Development after The Carlyle Group announced it would purchase the company at a 30% premium to market, also at a profit to the Portfolio. Herley Industries and Bronco Drilling were also sold profitably to acquirers. NewAlliance Bancshares was sold to First Niagara, which is now part of the Portfolio.

We believe that the current Portfolio will perform well in a slow growth environment and that it could perform much better if business conditions are more favorable than that. Since the Portfolio’s peak of cash in June, we have put significant sums to work in new ideas, largely sourced from the U.S. These investments were purchased at prices that have anticipated a recession, leaving ample room for appreciation if

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio

Managed by Third Avenue Management LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

a recession fails to materialize. By our internal estimates of net asset value, the Portfolio trades at a substantial discount to the Russell 2000 and Russell 2000 Value Indexes. Our Portfolio companies exhibit financial strength and sound leadership, and we believe that they are poised to see stock price appreciation on even modest improvements in operations. As we enter 2012 the market looks ripe with opportunities for us, and the Portfolio’s elevated cash position gives us ample freedom to put our inventory of ideas to work to further our long-term pursuit of superior investment performance.

Ian Lapey and Curtis Jensen

Portfolio Managers

Third Avenue Management LLC

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Vail Resorts, Inc.		2.8
Canfor Corp.		2.8
Ingram Micro, Inc. - Class A		2.7
Superior Industries International, Inc.		2.5
Cavco Industries, Inc.		2.5
Alexander & Baldwin, Inc.		2.4
Viterra, Inc.		2.3
SEACOR Holdings, Inc.		2.3
Madison Square Garden, Inc. (The) - Class A		2.2
Lanxess AG		2.1

Top Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Cyclical		19.9
Industrials		16.6
Cash & Cash Equivalents		14.8
Financials		13.3
Basic Materials		12.9
Technology		6.8
Energy		5.9
Communications		4.7
Non-Cyclical		2.9
Diversified		2.2

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio

Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio managed by

Third Avenue Management LLC vs. Russell 2000 Value Index¹ and

Dow Jones U.S. Small Cap Total Stock Market Index²

	Average Annual Return3 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		5 Year		Since Inception4
Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio—Class A		-8.70%		-1.00%		6.66%
Class B		-8.98%		-1.25%		6.41%
Russell 2000 Value Index1		-5.50%		-1.87%		5.25%
Dow Jones U.S. Small Cap Total Stock Market Index2		-2.91%		2.37%		7.36%

The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other class of shares because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹The Russell 2000 Value Index is an unmanaged measure of performance of those Russell 2000 companies that have lower price-to-book ratios and lower forecasted growth values.

²The Dow Jones U.S. Small Cap Total Stock Market Index is a float-adjusted market capitalization weighted index that reflects the shares of securities of the small-cap portion of the Dow Jones U.S. Total Full Cap Equity Index available to investors in the marketplace. The Index includes the components ranked 751 to 2,500 by full market capitalization.

³ “Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

⁴ Inception of the Class A and Class B shares is 5/1/2002. Index returns are based on an inception date of 5/1/2002.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The indexes do not include fees or expenses and are not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A
Actual		0.78%	$	1,000.00	$	887.50	$	3.71
Hypothetical*		0.78%		1,000.00		1,021.27		3.97
Class B
Actual		1.03%	$	1,000.00	$	886.50	$	4.90
Hypothetical*		1.03%		1,000.00		1,020.01		5.24

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—85.3% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Auto Components—2.5%
Superior Industries International, Inc. (a)		1,941,976	$	32,120,283
Building Products—0.7%
Insteel Industries, Inc.		855,820		9,405,462
Capital Markets—2.0%
Investment Technology Group, Inc.*		1,257,478		13,593,337
Westwood Holdings Group, Inc.		315,624		11,536,057
				25,129,394
Chemicals—6.6%
Lanxess AG		516,351		26,774,746
Minerals Technologies, Inc.		315,388		17,828,884
Sensient Technologies Corp.		303,416		11,499,466
Stepan Co.		161,293		12,929,247
Westlake Chemical Corp.		399,837		16,089,441
				85,121,784
Commercial Banks—0.4%
First Niagara Financial Group, Inc.		551,909		4,762,975
Commercial Services & Supplies—0.9%
UniFirst Corp.		210,840		11,963,062
Communications Equipment—3.7%
Bel Fuse, Inc.—Class B (a)		518,491		9,721,706
Sycamore Networks, Inc.* (a)		851,298		15,238,234
Tellabs, Inc.		5,498,462		22,213,787
				47,173,727
Computers & Peripherals—2.8%
Electronics for Imaging, Inc.*		722,272		10,292,376
Lexmark International, Inc.—Class A		760,843		25,161,078
				35,453,454
Construction & Engineering—0.8%
EMCOR Group, Inc.		364,981		9,785,141
Diversified Financial Services—2.2%
Ackermans & van Haaren N.V.		246,523		18,409,013
Leucadia National Corp.		426,042		9,688,195
				28,097,208
Electrical Equipment—0.9%
Encore Wire Corp.		432,509		11,201,983
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—6.3%
AVX Corp.		1,824,452		23,280,007
Electro Scientific Industries, Inc.* (a)		803,169		11,629,887
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—(Continued)
Ingram Micro, Inc.—Class A*		1,913,211	$	34,801,308
Park Electrochemical Corp.		452,159		11,584,314
				81,295,516
Energy Equipment & Services—5.5%
Bristow Group, Inc.		454,309		21,529,704
Pioneer Drilling Co.*		1,015,674		9,831,724
SEACOR Holdings, Inc.*		329,214		29,286,878
Tidewater, Inc.		197,218		9,722,847
				70,371,153
Food Products—2.4%
J&J Snack Foods Corp.		25,206		1,342,976
Viterra, Inc.		2,846,800		30,067,986
				31,410,962
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—2.6%
Haemonetics Corp.*		159,852		9,786,140
Teleflex, Inc.		396,494		24,301,117
				34,087,257
Health Care Providers & Services—0.9%
Cross Country Healthcare, Inc.* (a)		2,070,515		11,491,358
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—2.8%
Vail Resorts, Inc.		856,195		36,268,420
Household Durables—3.4%
Cavco Industries, Inc.* (a)		787,653		31,553,379
Skyline Corp. (a)		769,501		3,347,329
Stanley Furniture Co., Inc.* (a)		2,930,178		8,790,534
				43,691,242
Insurance—5.8%
Alleghany Corp.*		31,105		8,873,945
Arch Capital Group, Ltd.*		330,301		12,297,106
E-L Financial Corp.		33,355		11,152,776
HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc.		705,773		19,408,758
Montpelier Re Holdings, Ltd.		757,332		13,442,643
National Western Life Insurance Co.—Class A		9,987		1,359,830
Transatlantic Holdings, Inc.		150,871		8,257,170
				74,792,228
IT Services—3.6%
Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc.		941,568		21,232,358
ManTech International Corp.		788,706		24,639,176
				45,871,534

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Leisure Equipment & Products—0.6%
JAKKS Pacific, Inc.		538,372	$	7,596,429
Machinery—3.5%
Alamo Group, Inc.		510,790		13,755,574
Oshkosh Corp.*		1,119,923		23,943,954
Wacker Neuson SE		600,566		7,421,854
				45,121,382
Marine—2.4%
Alexander & Baldwin, Inc.		746,247		30,461,802
Media—4.0%
Liberty Media Corp. - Liberty Capital—Class A*		300,325		23,440,366
Madison Square Garden, Inc. (The)—Class A*		999,479		28,625,079
				52,065,445
Metals & Mining—1.9%
Compass Minerals International, Inc.		47,907		3,298,397
Kaiser Aluminum Corp.		455,148		20,882,190
				24,180,587
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—2.0%
Cimarex Energy Co.		100,000		6,190,000
SemGroup Corp.—Class A*		776,006		20,222,716
				26,412,716
Paper & Forest Products—4.4%
Canfor Corp.*		3,401,000		35,620,446
Glatfelter		1,490,853		21,050,844
				56,671,290
Professional Services—1.1%
ICF International, Inc.*		589,579		14,609,768
Real Estate Investment Trusts—1.5%
Excel Trust, Inc.		303,136		3,637,632
Origen Financial, Inc.*		811,331		1,046,617
Segro plc		4,507,254		14,582,623
				19,266,872
Real Estate Management & Development—3.3%
Hang Lung Group, Ltd.		3,638,000		19,798,013
Wheelock & Co., Ltd.		9,081,000		22,469,657
				42,267,670
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—0.5%
MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc.*		1,668,521	$	6,573,973
Specialty Retail—2.9%
Aeropostale, Inc.*		394,750		6,019,937
American Eagle Outfitters, Inc.		1,009,471		15,434,812
Haverty Furniture Cos., Inc. (a)		1,474,149		16,186,156
				37,640,905
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance—0.4%
Kearny Financial Corp.		601,614		5,715,333
Total Common Stocks (Cost $1,058,884,033)				1,098,078,315
Short-Term Investment—14.9% of Net Assets
Repurchase Agreement—14.9%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $191,272,213 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $195,345,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. at 0.625% due 12/23/13 with a value of $195,100,819.	$	191,272,000		191,272,000
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $191,272,000)				191,272,000
Total Investments—100.2% (Cost $1,250,156,033#)				1,289,350,315
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(0.2)%				(2,654,305	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	1,286,696,010

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $1,252,143,195. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $134,213,754 and $(97,006,634), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $37,207,120 for federal income tax purposes.

(a) Affiliated issuer (See Note 7 to Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in the investments of affiliated issuers.)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Common Stocks
Auto Components	$	32,120,283	$	—	$	—	$	32,120,283
Building Products		9,405,462		—		—		9,405,462
Capital Markets		25,129,394		—		—		25,129,394
Chemicals		58,347,038		26,774,746		—		85,121,784
Commercial Banks		4,762,975		—		—		4,762,975
Commercial Services & Supplies		11,963,062		—		—		11,963,062
Communications Equipment		47,173,727		—		—		47,173,727
Computers & Peripherals		35,453,454		—		—		35,453,454
Construction & Engineering		9,785,141		—		—		9,785,141
Diversified Financial Services		9,688,195		18,409,013		—		28,097,208
Electrical Equipment		11,201,983		—		—		11,201,983
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components		81,295,516		—		—		81,295,516
Energy Equipment & Services		70,371,153		—		—		70,371,153
Food Products		31,410,962		—		—		31,410,962
Health Care Equipment & Supplies		34,087,257		—		—		34,087,257
Health Care Providers & Services		11,491,358		—		—		11,491,358
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure		36,268,420		—		—		36,268,420
Household Durables		43,691,242		—		—		43,691,242
Insurance		74,792,228		—		—		74,792,228
IT Services		45,871,534		—		—		45,871,534
Leisure Equipment & Products		7,596,429		—		—		7,596,429
Machinery		37,699,528		7,421,854		—		45,121,382
Marine		30,461,802		—		—		30,461,802
Media		52,065,445		—		—		52,065,445
Metals & Mining		24,180,587		—		—		24,180,587
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels		26,412,716		—		—		26,412,716
Paper & Forest Products		56,671,290		—		—		56,671,290
Professional Services		14,609,768		—		—		14,609,768
Real Estate Investment Trusts		4,684,249		14,582,623		—		19,266,872
Real Estate Management & Development		—		42,267,670		—		42,267,670
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment		6,573,973		—		—		6,573,973

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY—(Continued)

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Specialty Retail	$	37,640,905	$	—	$	—	$	37,640,905
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance		5,715,333		—		—		5,715,333
Total Common Stocks		988,622,409		109,455,906		—		1,098,078,315
Total Short-Term Investment*		—		191,272,000		—		191,272,000
Total Investments	$	988,622,409	$	300,727,906	$	—	$	1,289,350,315

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)	$	957,999,449
Affiliated investment at value (b)		140,078,866
Repurchase Agreement		191,272,000
Cash denominated in foreign currencies (c)		16,556
Receivable for investments sold		4,531,789
Receivable for shares sold		337,422
Dividends receivable		912,663
Interest receivable		106
Total assets		1,295,148,851
Liabilities
Due to custodian		15,625
Payables for:
Investments purchased		6,644,995
Shares redeemed		744,451
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		808,636
Distribution and service fees - Class B		113,817
Administration fees		5,456
Custodian and accounting fees		14,885
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		79,909
Total liabilities		8,452,841
Net Assets	$	1,286,696,010
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	1,453,640,815
Accumulated net realized loss		(206,101,034	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		39,183,638
Distributions in excess of net investment income		(27,409	)
Net Assets	$	1,286,696,010
Net Assets
Class A	$	755,143,539
Class B		531,552,471
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		55,644,342
Class B		39,340,435
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	13.57
Class B		13.51

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreement, was $885,784,327.

(b) Identified cost of affiliated transaction was $173,099,706.

(c) Identified cost of cash denominated in foreign currencies was $16,572.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	10,244,309
Interest		19,795
Dividends from affiliated investments		1,731,932
Total investment income		11,996,036
Expenses
Management fees		9,490,306
Administration fees		65,136
Custodian and accounting fees		176,757
Distribution and service fees - Class B		1,495,600
Audit and tax services		33,114
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Shareholder reporting		89,172
Insurance		5,212
Miscellaneous		17,690
Total expenses		11,441,697
Net investment income		554,339
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments, Investments in Affiliates, and Foreign Currency Transactions
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments		90,536,115
Investments in affiliates		(90,888,479	)
Foreign currency transactions		63,966
Net realized loss on investments, investments in affiliates and foreign currency transactions		(288,398	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on:
Investments		(153,307,956	)
Investments in affiliates		19,357,994
Foreign currency transactions		(4,730	)
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments, investment in affiliates and foreign currency transactions		(133,954,692	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments, investment in affiliates and foreign currency transactions		(134,243,090	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(133,688,751	)

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $162,440.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	554,339		$	2,120,799
Net realized gain (loss) on investments, investments in affiliates and foreign currency transactions		(288,398	)		58,259,136
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments, investments in affiliates and foreign currency transactions		(133,954,692	)		179,775,996
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations		(133,688,751	)		240,155,931
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(7,475,653	)		(10,503,841	)
Class B		(6,576,253	)		(6,636,258	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(14,051,906	)		(17,140,099	)
Net increase (decrease) in net assets from capital share transactions		214,013,502			(279,709,273	)
Net Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets		66,272,845			(56,693,441	)
Net assets at beginning of period		1,220,423,165			1,277,116,606
Net assets at end of period	$	1,286,696,010		$	1,220,423,165
Undistributed (distributions in excess of) net investment income at end of period	$	(27,409	)	$	14,035,215

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		26,238,325		$	405,388,145			5,369,946		$	70,232,466
Reinvestments		471,650			7,475,653			749,739			10,503,841
Redemptions		(9,636,855	)		(151,112,282	)		(24,879,321	)		(351,194,806	)
Net increase (decrease)		17,073,120		$	261,751,516			(18,759,636	)	$	(270,458,499	)
Class B
Sales		4,576,453		$	66,866,664			5,683,346		$	74,753,841
Reinvestments		415,955			6,576,253			474,697			6,636,258
Redemptions		(8,367,898	)		(121,180,931	)		(6,941,718	)		(90,640,873	)
Net decrease		(3,375,490	)	$	(47,738,014	)		(783,675	)	$	(9,250,774	)
Increase (decrease) derived from capital shares transactions				$	214,013,502					$	(279,709,273	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	15.04		$	12.68		$	10.29		$	15.75		$	17.48
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.03			0.03			0.17			0.16			0.17
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(1.31	)		2.51			2.50			(4.46	)		(0.54	)
Total from investment operations		(1.28	)		2.54			2.67			(4.30	)		(0.37	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.19	)		(0.18	)		(0.16	)		(0.15	)		(0.21	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			(0.12	)		(1.01	)		(1.15	)
Total distributions		(0.19	)		(0.18	)		(0.28	)		(1.16	)		(1.36	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	13.57		$	15.04		$	12.68		$	10.29		$	15.75
Total Return (%)		(8.70	)		20.15			26.82			(29.69	)		(2.79	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.77			0.78			0.78			0.77			0.76
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.17			0.22			1.62			1.18			0.99
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		47.7			11.4			12.9			39.8			36.0
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	755.1		$	580.3		$	727.2		$	747.1		$	1,171.6

	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	14.99		$	12.64		$	10.25		$	15.68		$	17.41
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (loss)(a)		(0.02	)		0.02			0.16			0.13			0.13
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(1.30	)		2.48			2.48			(4.44	)		(0.54	)
Total from investment operations		(1.32	)		2.50			2.64			(4.31	)		(0.41	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.16	)		(0.15	)		(0.13	)		(0.11	)		(0.17	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			(0.12	)		(1.01	)		(1.15	)
Total distributions		(0.16	)		(0.15	)		(0.25	)		(1.12	)		(1.32	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	13.51		$	14.99		$	12.64		$	10.25		$	15.68
Total Return (%)		(8.98	)		19.90			26.45			(29.82	)		(3.02	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.02			1.03			1.03			1.02			1.01
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		(0.11	)		0.15			1.46			0.92			0.76
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		47.7			11.4			12.9			39.8			36.0
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	531.6		$	640.1		$	549.9		$	444.0		$	741.5

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A and B Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to foreign currency transactions, deferred trustees’ compensation, capital loss carryforwards, and losses deferred due to wash sales, Real Estate Investment Trust (REITs), and return of capital from certain securities as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

Foreign Currency Translation - The books and records of the Portfolio are maintained in U.S. dollars. The values of securities, currencies and other assets and liabilities denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars are translated into U.S. dollars based upon foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period. Purchases and sales of investment securities, income and expenses are translated on the respective dates of such transactions. Since the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, it is not practical to isolate that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates from that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities. Such fluctuations are included in the net realized and unrealized gain or loss on investments.

Net realized foreign exchange gains or losses arise from activity in forward foreign currency exchange contracts, sales of foreign currency, currency gains or losses realized between the trade and settlement dates on securities transactions, and the difference between the amounts of dividends, interest, and foreign withholding taxes recorded by the Portfolio and the U.S. dollar equivalent of the amounts actually received or paid by the Portfolio. Gains and losses attributable to foreign currency exchange rates on sales of securities are recorded as Net realized gains and losses on investments. Net unrealized foreign exchange gains and losses arise from changes in the value of assets and liabilities, other than investment securities, resulting from changes in foreign exchange rates.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with Third Avenue Management LLC (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year ended December 31, 2011	% per annum	Average Daily Net Assets
$9,490,306	0.75%	First $1 Billion
	0.70%	Over $1 Billion

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Distribution Agreement and Plan - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A and Class B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B distribution plan provides that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B Shares. However, under the Class B distribution agreement, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B distribution plan are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B distribution plan and distribution agreement, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred or paid in that regard.

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. as designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

Affiliated Broker - During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio paid brokerage commissions to affiliated brokers/dealers:

Affiliate	Commission
M.J. Whitman LLC	$	17,709

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases				Sales
U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$	—	$	627,774,614	$	—	$	535,480,365

During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio engaged in security purchase transactions with other affiliated portfolios. These purchase transactions amounted to $14,757,332.

5. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

7. Transactions in Securities of Affiliated Issuers

A summary of the Portfolio’s transactions in the securities of affiliated issuers during the year ended December 31, 2011 was as follows:

Security Description	Number of shares held at December 31, 2010			Shares purchased		Shares sold			Number of shares held at December 31, 2011
Bel Fuse, Inc.-Class B		281,261			237,230		—			518,491
Bronco Drilling Co., Inc.		4,460,843			—		(4,460,843	)		—
Cavco Industries, Inc.		787,653			—		—			787,653
Cross Country Healthcare, Inc.		2,684,784			25,000		(639,269	)		2,070,515
Electro Scientific Industries, Inc.		1,427,802			122,554		(747,187	)		803,169
Haverty Furniture Cos., Inc.		1,966,587			—		(492,438	)		1,474,149
Herley Industries, Inc.		1,060,702			—		(1,060,702	)		—
K-Swiss, Inc.		2,830,169			—		(2,830,169	)		—
Skyline Corp.		1,275,713			1,172		(507,384	)		769,501
Stanley Furniture Co., Inc.		3,627,538			—		(697,360	)		2,930,178
Superior Industries International, Inc.		2,243,637			—		(301,661	)		1,941,976
Sycamore Networks, Inc.		1,884,001			—		(1,032,703	)		851,298
Security Description	Net Realized Loss			Return of Capital		Dividend Income			Ending Value as of December 31, 2011
Bel Fuse, Inc.-Class B		—			—		107,968			9,721,706
Bronco Drilling Co., Inc.		(8,543,351	)		—		—			—
Cavco Industries, Inc.		—			—		—			31,553,379
Cross Country Healthcare, Inc.		(6,559,025	)		—		—			11,491,358
Electro Scientific Industries, Inc.		(715,306	)		—		—			11,629,887
Haverty Furniture Cos., Inc.		(852,042	)		—		235,990			16,186,156
Herley Industries, Inc.		4,840,855			—		—			—
K-Swiss, Inc.		(43,910,951	)		—		—			—
Skyline Corp.		(10,100,290	)		—		427,649			3,347,329
Stanley Furniture Co., Inc.		(12,558,898	)		—		—			8,790,534
Superior Industries International, Inc.		(266,847	)		—		960,325			32,120,283
Sycamore Networks, Inc.		(12,222,624	)		—		—			15,238,234
	$	(90,888,479	)	$	—	$	1,731,932		$	140,078,866

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$14,051,906	$	17,140,099	$	—	$	—	$	14,051,906	$	17,140,099

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards			Total
$—	$	—	$	37,194,136	$	(204,113,874	)	$	(166,919,738	)

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

8. Income Tax Information - continued

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses.

As of December 31, 2011, the post-enactment accumulated capital losses were $1,343,953 and the pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards expiring on December 31, 2017 were $202,769,921.

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 23, 2012

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio underperformed the median of its Performance Universe for the one-, three- and five- year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board also considered that the Portfolio underperformed its Lipper Index for the one- and three- year periods ended June 30, 2011, and outperformed its Lipper Index for the five- year period ended June 30, 2011. The Board also considered that the Portfolio outperformed its benchmark, the Russell 2000 Value Index, for the one-, three- and five- year periods ended September 30, 2011. The Board also considered that the Portfolio underperformed its other benchmark, the Dow Jones U.S. Small-Cap Total Stock Market Index, for the one-, three- and five- year periods ended September 30, 2011. The Board also took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance, including the impact of market conditions on the Sub-Adviser’s investment style. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s moderate underperformance was being reasonably addressed and/or monitored.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the median of the Expense Group, the Expense Universe and the Sub-advised Expense Universe. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were below the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Adviser had recently negotiated a reduction to the Portfolio’s sub-advisory fee schedule through the implementation of an additional breakpoint and that the Adviser agreed to waive a corresponding portion of its advisory fee in order for shareholders to benefit from the additional breakpoint being implemented at the sub-advisory fee level effective January 1, 2012. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that

24

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

With respect to the Third Avenue Small Cap Value Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee and sub-advisory fee each contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board further considered that the Portfolio’s management fees were below the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

25

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Managed By Turner Investments, L.P.

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A and B shares of the Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio returned -7.19% and -7.46%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Russell Midcap Growth Index¹, returned -1.65%.

Market Environment/Conditions

Volatility was the market norm in 2011, as investors engaged in a stomach-turning game of “risk on, risk off.” Positive economic data and headlines spurred rallies, but when bad news surfaced, burnt-fingered investors moved money out of stocks in droves. Such volatility made it difficult for active managers like us to do well; stocks moved in record lockstep, negating much of the differentiation in fundamentals that we look for in companies that are candidates for investment.

Beyond the year’s trademark volatility, if some of the concerns weighing on the market seemed familiar—well, they were. The first half of 2011 saw the market soaring on optimism that the global economy was finally recovering from the 2008 financial crisis, reaching an April high that was 104% above the trough reached in March 2009. But familiar fears crept in and left the market wobbling in the second half of the year; a soft patch in the U.S. economy spawned worries of a double-dip recession, the threat of sovereign-debt contagion spread in Europe as Italy and Spain joined Greece on the brink of default, and Standard & Poor’s for the first time in history cut the U.S. federal government’s credit rating, from AAA to AA+.

In the meantime, U.S. economic news has been slowly but steadily improving. We believe the soft patch in the U.S. was caused mainly by temporary disruptions from the earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan last March, and the recovery that had been underway previously is resuming. Unemployment claims reached fresh lows and the unemployment rate dropped to the lowest level since March 2009. Consumer confidence also ticked higher. But perhaps most welcomed were the early signs of a stabilizing U.S. housing market, thanks to low mortgage rates and improving credit availability.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

For 2011, the year marked a period for equity markets that witnessed high volatility and unfortunately valued the macro over the fundamental story. As a result, the Portfolio did trail results of the Russell Midcap Growth Index¹ for 2011. The Portfolio hung in with the index for the first nine months of the year despite the violent correction that took place during the third quarter which saw the midcap growth space correct approximately 20%. Although the fourth quarter saw strong absolute market gains, higher earnings growth companies and higher multiple stocks, which the Portfolio typically focuses on, trailed slower earnings growth companies and lower multiple stocks. On an absolute basis, three of the ten GICS economic sectors generated positive results during the period, led by the Consumer Staples and Health Care sectors. On a relative basis, the Consumer Discretionary and Information Technology sectors were the worst performing sectors. Conversely, the Consumer Staples and Health Care sectors were the best performing sectors relative to the benchmark.

In the Consumer Discretionary sector, the Portfolio’s specialty retailers detracted the most from performance. Specialty retailers did not fare well during the period pressured by higher commodity costs. Guess? Inc. exemplified the troubles of specialty retailers as the company forecasted a weaker than expected start to 2011 impaired by higher cotton costs and elevated spending in Asia. Casino equipment maker WMS Industries also traded lower impacted by a slower than expected expansion of new casinos. Both stocks were sold from the Portfolio.

Within the Information Technology sector our holdings in OmniVision Technologies, Inc. and OpenTable were among the largest detractors from performance. As Apple’s iPhone has generated tremendous demand from consumers, other companies have benefitted from Apple’s success; including OmniVision. The maker of image sensor devices has been a direct beneficiary of Apple’s growth. OmniVision has enjoyed a leadership position for their CameraChip Image sensors and has been a primary supplier for the Apple iPhone. However, the company experienced delays in its product cycle, which forced Apple to use multiple image sensor suppliers for the recent roll-out of its iPhone 4S. OpenTable, the online network company that connects restaurants and customers, reported weaker than expected revenue growth due to its underperforming Spotlight business which offers discounts to local restaurants. Overall, the company’s core business of online reservation services continues to be strong as highlighted by an increase in the number of consumers using the service to make reservations.

The Consumer Staples sector was lifted higher largely due to high-conviction holdings Green Mountain Coffee Roasters Inc. and Whole Foods Market Inc. Both of these companies emerged as market leaders in their respective industries after the economic downturn, supported by unrelenting demand for their products. Shares of Green Mountain traded 96% higher on news that the company agreed to partner with Starbucks, the world's biggest coffee chain. The agreement allows consumers to buy single-serve Starbucks k-cups at wholesale stores and markets in 2011, utilizing Green Mountain’s popular Keurig coffee machine. The deal with Starbucks further solidifies Green Mountain’s leadership position in the single-serve coffee market. Upscale food retailer Whole Foods Market also bolstered results. The company continues to experience strong demand for their organic foods aided by an improving economy. Whole Foods reported a strong pick-up in the number of customer visits, first-time customers, and spending per visit, all key measures of growth for the company. They also continue to see solid growth in its same store sales, a key measure for Whole Foods, and plans on opening another 24 to 27 stores in 2012.

The Health Care sector also contributed to relative gains. Two holdings in the Portfolio that stood out from the group were Alexion Pharmaceuticals and Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. (Canada). Alexion’s shares traded up over 36% for the third quarter as it won approval from the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) for

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Managed by Turner Investments, L.P.

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

Soliris, which is used to treat a rare disease that causes high blood pressure and kidney failure. Valeant is a specialty pharmaceuticals company that manufactures various products in the areas of neurology, dermatology, and branded generics. The company has benefitted from its experienced management team with a track record of successfully acquiring and integrating other businesses. During the period, Valeant announced a hostile bid to acquire Cephalon, which is a biotech company that specializes in treatments for the central nervous system, pain management and cancer. In addition, the company acquired Sanitas, a Lithuanian based branded generics company with operations in nine countries across Central Europe, and the Dermik dermatology business of Sanofi.

We are focused on making sure that the earnings outlook for all of the stocks we own in the Portfolio is soundly positive. We continue to own stocks in industries such as biotechnology, gaming, data security, and wireless communications that are among the fastest growing.

Christopher McHugh

Vice Chairman and Senior Portfolio Manager

Turner Investments, L.P.

*This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Broadcom Corp.—Class A		2.2
Whole Foods Market, Inc.		2.0
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.		1.9
Concho Resources, Inc.		1.8
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.		1.8
Nordstrom, Inc.		1.8
Citrix Systems, Inc.		1.7
Hershey Co. (The)		1.7
SanDisk Corp.		1.7
Cabot Oil & Gas Corp.		1.6

Top Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Technology		20.8
Non-Cyclical		19.8
Cyclical		19.6
Industrials		11.9
Energy		10.1
Basic Materials		6.2
Financials		5.5
Communications		4.9
Cash & Cash Equivalents		1.2

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio managed by

Turner Investment, L.P. vs. Russell Midcap Growth Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		5 Year		Since Inception3
Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio—Class A		-7.19%		2.41%		5.43%
Class B		-7.46%		2.14%		5.18%
Russell Midcap Growth Index1		-1.65%		2.44%		6.20%

The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other class of shares because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹The Russell Midcap Growth Index is an unmanaged measure of performance of those Russell Midcap companies (the 800 smallest companies in the Russell 1000 Index) with higher price-to-book ratios and higher forecasted growth values.

²“Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

³Inception of the Class A and Class B shares is 5/1/2004. Index returns are based on an inception date of 5/1/2004.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A(a)
Actual		0.86%	$	1,000.00	$	848.50	$	4.01
Hypothetical*		0.86%		1,000.00		1,020.86		4.38
Class B(a)
Actual		1.11%	$	1,000.00	$	847.10	$	5.17
Hypothetical*		1.11%		1,000.00		1,019.60		5.65

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

(a) The annualized expense ratio reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 3 to the Financial Statements.

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—97.7% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—1.2%
Hexcel Corp.*		79,940	$	1,935,347
Triumph Group, Inc.		26,010		1,520,285
				3,455,632
Air Freight & Logistics—1.3%
Expeditors International of Washington, Inc.		90,680		3,714,253
Airlines—1.4%
United Continental Holdings, Inc.* (a)		213,361		4,026,122
Auto Components—1.0%
BorgWarner, Inc.* (a)		44,150		2,814,121
Automobiles—1.0%
Harley-Davidson, Inc.		70,800		2,751,996
Beverages—1.3%
Hansen Natural Corp.*		39,030		3,596,224
Biotechnology—4.0%
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.*		74,290		5,311,735
BioMarin Pharmaceutical, Inc.*		33,550		1,153,449
Cepheid, Inc.* (a)		69,220		2,381,860
Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.*		59,060		2,595,687
				11,442,731
Building Products—1.0%
Owens Corning, Inc.*		98,530		2,829,782
Capital Markets—2.2%
Affiliated Managers Group, Inc.*		41,810		4,011,670
Ameriprise Financial, Inc.		42,180		2,093,815
				6,105,485
Chemicals—4.5%
Airgas, Inc.		26,810		2,093,325
Celanese Corp., Series A		40,250		1,781,867
CF Industries Holdings, Inc.		20,170		2,924,247
FMC Corp.		32,200		2,770,488
PPG Industries, Inc.		38,590		3,221,879
				12,791,806
Commercial Banks—1.1%
Signature Bank*		51,300		3,077,487
Commercial Services & Supplies—0.6%
Clean Harbors, Inc.*		26,700		1,701,591
Communications Equipment—2.0%
Acme Packet, Inc.*		41,210	$	1,273,801
F5 Networks, Inc.*		41,916		4,448,126
				5,721,927
Computers & Peripherals—1.7%
SanDisk Corp.*		96,700		4,758,607
Containers & Packaging—0.7%
Crown Holdings, Inc.*		61,380		2,061,140
Diversified Financial Services—0.6%
MSCI, Inc.—Class A*		51,080		1,682,064
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—0.5%
FEI Co.* (a)		37,160		1,515,385
Energy Equipment & Services—2.9%
Cameron International Corp.*		61,660		3,033,055
FMC Technologies, Inc.*		49,700		2,595,831
Rowan Cos., Inc.*		87,470		2,652,965
				8,281,851
Food & Staples Retailing—2.0%
Whole Foods Market, Inc.		81,020		5,637,372
Food Products—3.4%
Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc.* (a)		48,630		2,181,056
Hershey Co. (The)		78,770		4,866,411
Mead Johnson Nutrition Co.		36,350		2,498,335
				9,545,802
Health Care Equipment & Supplies —1.4%
Intuitive Surgical, Inc.*		8,740		4,046,707
Health Care Providers & Services—3.2%
AMERIGROUP Corp.* (a)		39,700		2,345,476
AmerisourceBergen Corp.		89,570		3,331,108
Catalyst Health Solutions, Inc.*		19,670		1,022,840
WellCare Health Plans, Inc.*		46,400		2,436,000
				9,135,424
Health Care Technology—2.3%
Cerner Corp.*		49,390		3,025,138
Quality Systems, Inc. (a)		39,880		1,475,161
SXC Health Solutions Corp.*		36,340		2,052,483
				6,552,782
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—5.9%
Arcos Dorados Holdings, Inc.—Class A		86,230		1,770,302

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—(Continued)
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.*		11,170	$	3,772,556
MGM Resorts International*		216,410		2,257,156
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.		106,880		5,127,034
Wynn Resorts, Ltd.		34,000		3,756,660
				16,683,708
Household Durables—0.8%
Tempur-Pedic International, Inc.* (a)		42,530		2,234,101
Insurance—0.8%
Aon Corp.		45,850		2,145,780
Internet & Catalog Retail—1.1%
Expedia, Inc. (a)		55,530		1,611,481
TripAdvisor, Inc.* (a)		55,530		1,399,911
				3,011,392
Internet Software & Services—0.7%
LinkedIn Corp.—Class A*		30,040		1,892,820
IT Services—4.2%
Fiserv, Inc.*		58,480		3,435,115
Teradata Corp.*		32,070		1,555,716
VeriFone Systems, Inc.* (a)		64,200		2,280,384
Western Union Co.		246,120		4,494,151
				11,765,366
Life Sciences Tools & Services—0.9%
Agilent Technologies, Inc.*		72,910		2,546,746
Machinery—3.3%
Cummins, Inc.		36,130		3,180,163
Joy Global, Inc.		50,450		3,782,236
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.		36,310		2,454,556
				9,416,955
Marine—0.8%
Kirby Corp.* (a)		36,090		2,376,166
Metals & Mining—1.6%
Allegheny Technologies, Inc.		42,270		2,020,506
Cliffs Natural Resources, Inc.		41,840		2,608,724
				4,629,230
Multiline Retail—2.7%
Family Dollar Stores, Inc.		45,170		2,604,502
Nordstrom, Inc.		101,560		5,048,548
				7,653,050
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—7.1%
Cabot Oil & Gas Corp.		61,630	$	4,677,717
Concho Resources, Inc.*		55,210		5,175,937
Northern Oil and Gas Inc.* (a)		56,920		1,364,942
Peabody Energy Corp.		90,250		2,988,178
Range Resources Corp.		36,600		2,267,004
SM Energy Co.		48,670		3,557,777
				20,031,555
Pharmaceuticals—1.1%
Perrigo Co. (a)		32,721		3,183,753
Professional Services—0.8%
Equifax, Inc.		60,520		2,344,545
Real Estate Management & Development—1.5%
CBRE Group, Inc*		272,720		4,150,798
Road & Rail—1.3%
Genesee & Wyoming, Inc.—Class A* (a)		31,400		1,902,212
Kansas City Southern*		27,600		1,877,076
				3,779,288
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—9.5%
Altera Corp.		120,530		4,471,663
Avago Technologies, Ltd.		125,950		3,634,917
Broadcom Corp.—Class A*		207,990		6,106,586
Cypress Semiconductor Corp.*		166,540		2,812,860
Lam Research Corp.*		108,400		4,012,968
ON Semiconductor Corp.*		490,040		3,783,109
Teradyne, Inc.*		162,260		2,211,604
				27,033,707
Software—5.7%
Citrix Systems, Inc.*		81,200		4,930,464
Electronic Arts, Inc.*		182,180		3,752,908
Fortinet, Inc.*		73,580		1,604,780
Salesforce.com, Inc.*		26,940		2,733,332
TIBCO Software, Inc.*		130,640		3,123,603
				16,145,087
Specialty Retail—2.3%
Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.*		77,630		4,500,211
Williams-Sonoma, Inc.		54,870		2,112,495
				6,612,706
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—4.3%
Coach, Inc.		57,230		3,493,319
Deckers Outdoor Corp.* (a)		31,980		2,416,729

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares/Par Amount		Value
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—(Continued)
Lululemon Athletica, Inc.* (a)		34,370	$	1,603,704
Ralph Lauren Corp.		18,510		2,555,861
Under Armour, Inc.—Class A* (a)		31,400		2,254,206
				12,323,819
Total Common Stocks (Cost $252,492,182)				277,206,863
Short-Term Investments—12.2%
Mutual Funds—11.0%
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (b)		31,106,613		31,106,613
Repurchase Agreement—1.2%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $3,360,004 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $3,300,000 U.S. Treasury Notes at 1.875% due 02/28/14 with a value of $3,427,875.	$	3,360,000		3,360,000
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $34,466,613)				34,466,613
Total Investments—109.9% (Cost $286,958,795#)				311,673,476
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(9.9)%				(28,037,638	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	283,635,838

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $287,378,891. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $35,560,944 and $(11,266,359), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $24,294,585 for federal income tax purposes.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities loaned was $30,229,236 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $31,106,613. The cash collateral is invested in a money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian.

(b) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities lending transactions.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Total Common Stocks*	$	277,206,863	$	—	$	—	$	277,206,863
Short-Term Investments
Mutual Funds		31,106,613		—		—		31,106,613
Repurchase Agreement		—		3,360,000		—		3,360,000
Total Short-Term Investments		31,106,613		3,360,000		—		34,466,613
Total Investments	$	308,313,476	$	3,360,000	$	—	$	311,673,476

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)(b)	$	308,313,476
Repurchase Agreement		3,360,000
Cash		214
Receivable for investments sold		4,737,816
Receivable for shares sold		16,319
Dividends receivable		65,046
Total assets		316,492,871
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		1,445,863
Shares redeemed		18,653
Collateral for securities loaned		31,106,613
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		195,362
Distribution and service fees - Class B		22,453
Administration fees		1,444
Custodian and accounting fees		3,310
Deferred trustees’ fees		25,067
Other expenses		38,268
Total liabilities		32,857,033
Net Assets	$	283,635,838
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	210,848,021
Accumulated net realized gain		48,098,203
Unrealized appreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		24,714,681
Accumulated net investment loss		(25,067	)
Net Assets	$	283,635,838
Net Assets
Class A	$	179,581,649
Class B		104,054,189
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		14,067,155
Class B		8,308,838
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	12.77
Class B		12.52

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreement, was $283,598,795.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $30,229,236.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	2,027,539
Interest (b)		129,165
Total investment income		2,156,704
Expenses
Management fees		2,699,864
Administration fees		20,235
Custodian and accounting fees		36,754
Distribution and service fees - Class B		283,621
Audit and tax services		33,061
Legal		33,286
Trustees’ fees and expenses		35,424
Shareholder reporting		31,950
Insurance		1,327
Miscellaneous		7,885
Total expenses		3,183,407
Less management fee waiver		(3,164	)
Less broker commission recapture		(88,541	)
Net expenses		3,091,702
Net investment loss		(934,998	)
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments and Foreign Currency Transactions
Net realized gain on:
Investments		81,224,693
Foreign currency transactions		298
Net realized gain on investments and foreign currency transactions		81,224,991
Net change in unrealized depreciation on:
Investments		(93,282,037	)
Foreign currency transactions		(60	)
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		(93,282,097	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments and foreign currency transactions		(12,057,106	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(12,992,104	)

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $16,727.

(b) Includes net income on securities loaned of $128,328.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment loss	$	(934,998	)	$	(348,758	)
Net realized gain on investments and foreign currency transactions		81,224,991			80,899,335
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments and foreign currency transactions		(93,282,097	)		18,327,923
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations		(12,992,104	)		98,878,500
Net decrease in net assets from capital share transactions		(97,958,093	)		(133,790,313	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets		(110,950,197	)		(34,911,813	)
Net assets at beginning of period		394,586,035			429,497,848
Net assets at end of period	$	283,635,838		$	394,586,035
Accumulated net investment loss at end of period	$	(25,067	)	$	(16,302	)

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		3,342,422		$	50,732,798			2,366,988		$	27,343,098
Redemptions		(10,137,225	)		(153,973,309	)		(14,126,349	)		(169,581,366	)
Net decrease		(6,794,803	)	$	(103,240,511	)		(11,759,361	)	$	(142,238,268	)
Class B
Sales		2,303,222		$	31,745,386			2,623,751		$	30,167,624
Redemptions		(1,937,151	)		(26,462,968	)		(1,938,326	)		(21,719,669	)
Net increase		366,071		$	5,282,418			685,425		$	8,447,955
Decrease derived from capital shares transactions				$	(97,958,093	)				$	(133,790,313	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	13.76		$	10.80		$	7.32		$	15.33		$	12.75
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (loss)(a)		(0.03	)		(0.01	)		0.00	+		0.01			(0.03	)
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.96	)		2.97			3.48			(6.88	)		3.08
Total from investment operations		(0.99	)		2.96			3.48			(6.87	)		3.05
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.00	)++		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(1.14	)		(0.47	)
Total distributions		0.00			0.00			0.00			(1.14	)		(0.47	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	12.77		$	13.76		$	10.80		$	7.32		$	15.33
Total Return (%)		(7.19	)		27.41			47.54			(48.14	)		24.49
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.84			0.84			0.84			0.82			0.83
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.84			0.84			0.83			0.77			0.80
Ratio of net investment income (loss) to average net assets (%)		(0.20	)		(0.05	)		0.06			0.06			(0.19	)
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		109.8			102.6			100.2			158.0			139.8
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	179.6		$	287.1		$	352.2		$	246.8		$	381.8

	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	13.53		$	10.64		$	7.23		$	15.20		$	12.68
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment loss(a)		(0.06	)		(0.03	)		(0.02	)		(0.02	)		(0.06	)
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.95	)		2.92			3.43			(6.81	)		3.05
Total from investment operations		(1.01	)		2.89			3.41			(6.83	)		2.99
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		0.00			0.00			0.00			0.00			0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(1.14	)		(0.47	)
Total distributions		0.00			0.00			0.00			(1.14	)		(0.47	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	12.52		$	13.53		$	10.64		$	7.23		$	15.20
Total Return (%)		(7.46	)		27.16			47.16			(48.30	)		24.15
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.09			1.09			1.09			1.07			1.08
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		1.09			1.09			1.08			1.02			1.05
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		(0.42	)		(0.23	)		(0.20	)		(0.20	)		(0.44	)
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		109.8			102.6			100.2			158.0			139.8
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	104.1		$	107.5		$	77.3		$	50.5		$	94.0

+ Net investment income was less than $0.01.

++ Distributions from net investment income were less than $0.01.

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A and B Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to broker commission recapture, futures transactions, foreign currency transactions, partnerships, deferred trustees’ compensation, capital loss carryforwards and losses deferred due to wash sales, as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Securities Lending - The Portfolio may lend its portfolio securities to certain qualified brokers who borrow securities in order to complete certain securities transactions. By lending its portfolio securities, the Portfolio attempts to increase its net investment income through the receipt of income on the loaned securities. Any gain or loss in the market price of the loaned securities that might occur and any interest earned or dividends declared during the term of the loan would accrue to the account of the Portfolio.

The Trust has entered into a securities lending arrangement with the custodian, State Street Bank and Trust Company (the “custodian”). Under this arrangement, the custodian is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral at least equal to 102% of the market value of the loaned

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

securities (105% for foreign equity securities), at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities must be maintained for the duration of the loan. Cash collateral is generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The Navigator Portfolio is a registered money market fund which invests in a variety of high quality U.S. dollar-denominated instruments. If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower shall be required to deliver, by the close of business on the following business day, an additional amount of collateral so that the total amount of posted collateral equals at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of net income (income after the deduction of expenses and fees of the Navigator Portfolio) on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the custodian and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by U.S. Treasuries, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the custodian. The risks associated with lending portfolio securities include, but are not limited to, possible delays in receiving additional collateral or in the recovery of the loaned securities, possible loss of rights in the collateral should the borrower fail financially, as well as risk of loss in the value of the collateral or the value of the investments made with the collateral. Net interest income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2011 is disclosed in the footnotes to the Statement of Operations. Any outstanding loans by the Portfolio at December 31, 2011 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

Directed Brokerage Agreement - The Trust has entered into a directed brokerage arrangement with State Street Global Markets (“SSGM”). Under this arrangement, the Portfolio directs certain trades to SSGM in return for a recapture credit. SSGM issues a cash rebate to the Portfolio. Amounts paid to the Portfolio are shown separately as broker commission recapture on the Statement of Operations of the Portfolio. Additionally, these amounts have been excluded from the calculation of the ratio of net expenses to average net assets presented in the Financial Highlights for each share class.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with Turner Investment Partners, L.P. (the “Subadviser”) for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year  ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$2,699,864		0.80	%	First $300 Million
		0.70	%	Over $300 Million

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Management Fee Waiver - Effective November 12, 2009, the Subadviser reduced the subadvisory fee it charges to the Adviser for managing the Portfolio. This fee change reduced the subadvisory fee charged on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets in excess of $400 million. In connection with this change in the subadvisory fee, the Adviser contractually agreed, effective May 1, 2011, to waive a portion of the management fee through

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

April 30, 2012. This waiver reduced the management fee to the annual rate of 0.650% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets in excess of $400 million. This arrangement was voluntary for the period from January 1, 2011 through April 30, 2011. Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as a management fee waiver in the Statement of Operations.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

Distribution Agreement and Plan - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A and Class B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B distribution plan provides that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B Shares. However, under the Class B distribution agreement, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B distribution plan are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2011 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Under the terms of the Class B distribution plan and distribution agreement, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. as designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases				Sales
U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$	—	$	367,101,253	$	—	$	460,761,881

During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio engaged in security sale transactions with other affiliated portfolios. These sale transactions amounted to $44,665,045 and resulted in a realized gain of $18,600,724.

5. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

6. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

7. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income				Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2011		2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—

There were no distributions paid for the years ending December 31, 2011 and 2010.

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards		Total
$—	$	48,518,299	$	24,294,585	$	—	$	72,812,884

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses. At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not have any capital loss carryforwards.

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 23, 2012

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and Lipper Index for the one- year period ended June 30, 2011, and underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and Lipper Index for the three- and five- year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board also considered that the Portfolio outperformed its benchmark, the Russell Midcap Growth Index, for the one- and five- year periods ended September 30, 2011, and underperformed its benchmark for the three- year period ended September 30, 2011. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance, including the impact of current market conditions on the Sub-Adviser’s investment style and its more recent improved performance. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s performance was adequate.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees were equal to the Expense Group median, above the Expense Universe median, and below the Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board further considered that the Portfolio’s total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the median of the Expense Group, the Expense Universe and the Sub-advised Expense Universe. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were above the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s expenses. The Board also noted that the Adviser had negotiated a reduction to the Portfolio’s sub-advisory fee schedule through the implementation of an additional breakpoint, effective August 31, 2009. The Board also noted that the Adviser commenced waiving an additional portion of its advisory fee in order for shareholders to benefit from the additional breakpoint being implemented at the sub-advisory fee level. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

With respect to the Turner Mid Cap Growth Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee and sub-advisory fee each contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s management fees are above the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

24

Simplify your life…

with MetLife eDelivery^® while helping MetLife preserve the planet’s natural resources.

(see details on inside cover)

Met Investors Series Trust Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio Annual Report December 31, 2011

Letter from the President

Letter to Policy Holders

February 1, 2012

Economic, political, and natural events around the world caused sharp and often sudden shifts in sentiment for the capital markets during 2011. Investors appeared to shun riskier asset classes such as stocks and credit-based bonds during the middle two quarters, while they favored them during the first and fourth quarters.

Within fixed income, the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 7.8% during 2011 as investment grade bonds benefited from a decline in interest rates and a relatively stable credit spread during most of the year.

Common stock prices see-sawed during the year in response to changing views about the economy’s health and the ability of the world’s governments to address tough fiscal issues. After producing a modest return of about 6.0% in the first half of the year, stocks fell sharply in the third quarter before recovering in the fourth quarter to finish the year with a 2.1% return as measured by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Foreign stocks, as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index, fell about 12.1% on both a local and dollar basis.

On the following pages, you will find a review of your Portfolio and its investment performance. MetLife appreciates your trust and will continue to focus our efforts on meeting your investment needs.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Forget

President

Met Investors Series Trust

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio

Managed by Invesco Advisers, Inc.

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Performance

For the one year period ended December 31, 2011, the Class A and B shares of the Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio returned -1.17% and -1.48%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Russell 1000 Value Index¹, returned 0.39%.

Market Environment/Conditions

The calendar year began with equity markets fueled on the second round of “quantitative easing” by the U.S. Federal Reserve and on an upward trend through the first quarter of 2011. However, with the spring came increased volatility and significant macroeconomic distortions due to civil unrest in Egypt and Libya, flooding in Australia and a devastating earthquake and tsunami in Japan. Corporate earnings remained strong with largely positive surprises, but were often overshadowed by investor concerns about continuing high unemployment and soft housing data. Although markets stabilized and were generally in positive territory through the summer, major equity indexes sold off precipitously in August as the U.S. government struggled to raise the nation’s debt ceiling. Despite an eventual agreement between the White House and Congress, credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s announced the first-ever downgrade to long-term U.S. government debt. Uncertainty created by the downgrade combined with the continuing saga surrounding the debt crisis in the Eurozone reignited fears of a global recession. Despite occasional signs of sustained but muted growth, these macroeconomic factors continued to weigh on markets through the end of the reporting period.

Results were mixed among the sectors of the Russell 1000 Value, with cyclical industries such as Financials, Materials and Information Technology posting negative returns, while defensive sectors such as Healthcare and Consumer Staples fared better, posting double digit positive returns.

Portfolio Review/Year-End Positioning

Unfavorable stock selection and a slight underweight position in the Energy sector were the largest detractors from Portfolio performance. Specifically, the Portfolio had exposure to oil equipment and services companies Halliburton and Weatherford, which were two of the main detractors in this sector. Both holdings were affected by decreasing profit margins from international drilling efforts that fell through during the economic slow-down in Europe and overseas, causing earnings expectations to be lowered, thereby, negatively affecting the stock price.

Unfavorable stock selection within and a meaningful overweight to Information Technology (IT) companies also dampened performance relative to the index. Within the IT sector, hardware and internet-related stocks, including Cisco Systems and Hewlett-Packard, performed poorly over the reporting period. Cisco Systems stock declined on cautious guidance regarding company revenue forecasts and worries of IT spending cuts from both the U.S. government and corporations. Hewlett-Packard stock declined on concerns of overpaying for the acquisition of an enterprise software company. The company’s CEO was replaced in September of 2011 by Meg Whitman, the prior CEO of eBay (another Portfolio holding).

A material underweight to Utilities was a major detractor of performance, as Utilities was the highest performing sector for the period, as investors sought defensive oriented, dividend yielding stocks during the market turmoil.

Finally, stock selection in the Financials sector acted as a detractor from relative performance for the period. Notably, exposure to diversified financials like Citigroup, Bank of New York Mellon Corp. and Morgan Stanley detracted from both absolute and relative performance as investors fled bank stocks beginning in the summer of 2011 on concerns of European debt crisis contagion.

On the positive side, strong stock selection in the Health Care sector was the largest contributor to Portfolio performance. Health Care provider UnitedHealth Group, pharmaceuticals companies Bristol-Myers Squibb and GlaxoSmithKline were top performers in this sector on a relative and absolute basis.

Stock selection and a significant overweight position in the Consumer Discretionary sector also enhanced relative performance of the Portfolio. The Portfolio’s main Consumer Discretionary exposure was in media companies. Viacom and Comcast continued to be top performers during the reporting period, continuing the trend from the previous calendar year.

Favorable stock selection in the Telecommunication Services sector also aided Portfolio performance. Notably, Vodafone Group was one of the largest relative contributors within this sector, as well as not owning names like Sprint Nextel Corp. helped relative performance versus the benchmark.

Toward the end of the reporting period, we reduced positions in media, pharmaceuticals and insurance companies due to rising valuations and used the proceeds to increase exposure to select diversified financial, banking, property and casualty insurance and integrated oil companies as they came under pressure.

We believe our contrarian philosophy and deep value approach of buying extremely undervalued companies can allow us to capitalize on market volatility and periods of down markets as value is created for new investment opportunities.

Kevin Holt, Devin Armstrong, Jason Leder, Matthew Seinsheimer and Jay Warwick

Invesco Advisers, Inc.

1

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio

Managed by Invesco Advisers, Inc.

Portfolio Manager Commentary* (continued)

* This commentary may include statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the U.S. securities laws. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, projections, estimates, and information about possible or future results related to the Portfolio, market or regulatory developments. The views expressed above are not guarantees of future performance or economic results and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from the views expressed herein. The views expressed above are those of the subadvisory firm as of December 31, 2011 and are subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the subadvisory firm undertakes no obligation to update the views expressed herein. Any discussions of specific securities should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those securities. The views expressed above (including any forward-looking statement) may not be relied upon as investment advice or as an indication of the Portfolio’s trading intent. Information about the Portfolio’s holdings, asset allocation or country diversification is historical and is not an indication of future Portfolio composition, which may vary. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of any index mentioned in this commentary has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. In addition, the returns do not reflect additional fees charged by separate accounts or variable insurance contracts that an investor in the Portfolio may pay. If these additional fees were reflected, performance would have been lower.

Portfolio Composition as of December 31, 2011

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Comcast Corp. - Class A		3.8
International Paper Co.		3.2
Pfizer, Inc.		2.8
JPMorgan Chase & Co.		2.6
Viacom, Inc. - Class B		2.5
Citigroup, Inc.		2.3
Microsoft Corp.		2.3
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.		2.2
Allstate Corp. (The)		2.2
BP plc (ADR)		2.1

Top Sectors

	% of Market Value of Total Investments
Communications		19.3
Financials		18.5
Non-Cyclical		18.4
Energy		11.9
Cyclical		7.7
Technology		6.3
Industrials		6.2
Cash & Cash Equivalents		4.7
Basic Materials		4.1
Utilities		2.9

2

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio

Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio managed by

Invesco Advisers, Inc. vs. Russell 1000 Value Index¹

	Average Annual Return2 (for the year ended 12/31/11)
	1 Year		5 Year		Since Inception3
Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio—Class A		-1.17%		-1.96%		1.66%
Class B		-1.48%		-2.19%		1.42%
Russell 1000 Value Index1		0.39%		-2.64%		2.32%

The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of the other class of shares because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

¹The Russell 1000 Value Index is an unmanaged measure of the largest capitalized U.S. domiciled companies with a less than average growth orientation. Companies in this index generally have a low price-to-book and price-to-earnings ratio, higher dividend yields and lower forecasted growth values.

²“Average Annual Return” is calculated including reinvestment of all income dividends and capital gain distributions.

³ Inception of Class A and Class B shares is 5/2/2005. Index returns are based on an inception date of 5/2/2005.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment in the Portfolio will fluctuate, so that shares, on any given day or when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, or administration charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The index does not include fees or expenses and is not available for direct investment.

3

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio

Understanding Your Portfolio’s Expenses

Shareholder Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Portfolio, you incur ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees; and other Portfolio expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) (referred to as “expenses”) of investing in the Portfolio and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Actual Expenses

The first line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested in the particular share class of the Portfolio, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line for each share class of the Portfolio in the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Portfolio’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Portfolio’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Portfolio and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any fees or charges of your variable insurance product or any additional expenses that participants in certain eligible qualified plans may bear relating to the operations of their plan. Therefore, the second line for each share class in the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these other costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Annualized Expense Ratio		Beginning Account Value July 1, 2011		Ending Account Value December 31, 2011		Expense Paid During Period** July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
Class A
Actual		0.61%	$	1,000.00	$	932.90	$	2.97
Hypothetical*		0.61%		1,000.00		1,022.12		3.11
Class B
Actual		0.86%	$	1,000.00	$	931.70	$	4.19
Hypothetical*		0.86%		1,000.00		1,020.86		4.38

* Hypothetical assumes a rate of return of 5% per year before expenses.

** Expenses paid are equal to the Portfolio’s annualized expense ratio for the most recent six month period, as shown above, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days (184 days) in the most recent fiscal half-year, divided by 365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

4

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—95.1% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—2.4%
Honeywell International, Inc.		544,884	$	29,614,446
Textron, Inc. (a)		911,860		16,860,291
				46,474,737
Automobiles—1.2%
General Motors Co.* (a)		1,200,853		24,341,290
Beverages—0.5%
PepsiCo, Inc.		146,015		9,688,095
Capital Markets—3.5%
Bank of New York Mellon Corp.		1,478,621		29,439,344
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The)		163,951		14,826,089
Morgan Stanley		1,032,798		15,626,234
State Street Corp.		221,738		8,938,259
				68,829,926
Commercial Banks—4.9%
Fifth Third Bancorp.		1,319,174		16,779,893
PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.		513,277		29,600,685
U.S. Bancorp. (a)		496,109		13,419,748
Wells Fargo & Co.		1,337,846		36,871,036
				96,671,362
Communications Equipment—1.0%
Cisco Systems, Inc.		1,096,634		19,827,143
Computers & Peripherals—2.8%
Dell, Inc.*		1,314,194		19,226,658
Hewlett-Packard Co.		1,425,297		36,715,651
				55,942,309
Diversified Financial Services—5.7%
Bank of America Corp.		2,921,164		16,241,672
Citigroup, Inc.		1,748,350		45,999,088
JPMorgan Chase & Co.		1,517,007		50,440,483
				112,681,243
Diversified Telecommunication Services—2.8%
AT&T, Inc.		725,639		21,943,323
Verizon Communications, Inc.		813,970		32,656,477
				54,599,800
Electric Utilities—2.9%
FirstEnergy Corp.		522,324		23,138,953
PPL Corp.		1,142,526		33,613,115
				56,752,068
Electrical Equipment—0.7%
Emerson Electric Co. (a)		282,953	$	13,182,780
Energy Equipment & Services—3.8%
Halliburton Co.		1,128,955		38,960,237
Noble Corp.*		294,465		8,898,732
Weatherford International, Ltd.*		1,895,299		27,747,178
				75,606,147
Food & Staples Retailing—3.0%
CVS Caremark Corp. (a)		938,556		38,274,313
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (a)		340,422		20,343,619
				58,617,932
Food Products—3.6%
Kraft Foods, Inc.—Class A		926,609		34,618,112
Unilever N.V.		1,024,950		35,227,532
				69,845,644
Health Care Providers & Services—3.7%
Cardinal Health, Inc.		454,324		18,450,097
UnitedHealth Group, Inc.		728,582		36,924,536
WellPoint, Inc.		258,724		17,140,465
				72,515,098
Household Products—0.4%
Procter & Gamble Co. (The)		114,452		7,635,093
Industrial Conglomerates—1.5%
General Electric Co.		1,621,040		29,032,826
Insurance—4.3%
Aflac, Inc. (a)		164,193		7,102,989
Allstate Corp. (The)		1,550,783		42,506,962
Chubb Corp. (The) (a)		125,720		8,702,338
Travelers Cos., Inc. (The)		434,446		25,706,170
				84,018,459
Internet Software & Services—3.6%
eBay, Inc.*		1,245,132		37,764,853
Yahoo!, Inc.*		2,090,105		33,713,394
				71,478,247
Machinery—1.7%
Ingersoll-Rand plc (a)		1,066,534		32,497,291
Media—10.8%
Comcast Corp.—Class A (a)		3,153,116		74,760,381
News Corp.—Class B		1,712,292		31,129,469
Time Warner Cable, Inc.		522,104		33,190,151

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Media—(Continued)
Time Warner, Inc.		617,445	$	22,314,462
Viacom, Inc.—Class B		1,095,613		49,751,786
				211,146,249
Metals & Mining—0.9%
Alcoa, Inc.		2,016,593		17,443,529
Multiline Retail—1.1%
Macy's, Inc.		219,393		7,060,067
Target Corp. (a)		271,223		13,892,042
				20,952,109
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—8.1%
BP plc (ADR)		979,598		41,868,018
Chesapeake Energy Corp.		533,211		11,885,273
Chevron Corp.		384,659		40,927,718
Murphy Oil Corp.		415,386		23,153,616
Royal Dutch Shell plc (ADR)		553,974		40,489,960
				158,324,585
Paper & Forest Products—3.2%
International Paper Co.		2,110,063		62,457,865
Personal Products—0.3%
Avon Products, Inc.		349,575		6,107,075
Pharmaceuticals—9.9%
Abbott Laboratories		139,518		7,845,097
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.		1,240,785		43,725,263
GlaxoSmithKline plc (ADR)		493,218		22,505,537
Merck & Co., Inc.		1,037,207		39,102,704
Pfizer, Inc.		2,500,105		54,102,272
Roche Holding AG (ADR)		395,221		16,816,654
Sanofi-Aventis (ADR)		273,479		9,992,923
				194,090,450
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—1.1%
Intel Corp.		589,794		14,302,505
KLA-Tencor Corp. (a)		153,393		7,401,212
				21,703,717
Software—2.3%
Microsoft Corp.		1,767,188		45,876,201
Specialty Retail—2.4%
Home Depot, Inc. (The)		289,091		12,153,386
Lowe's Cos., Inc.		795,536		20,190,704
Staples, Inc.		1,088,441		15,118,445
				47,462,535
Wireless Telecommunication Services—1.0%
Vodafone Group plc (ADR) (a)		720,023	$	20,182,245
Total Common Stocks (Cost $1,792,949,117)				1,865,984,050
Short-Term Investments—6.0%
Mutual Funds—1.2%
State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (b)		24,082,963		24,082,963
Repurchase Agreement—4.8%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/11 at 0.010% to be repurchased at $92,825,103 on 01/03/12, collateralized by $92,915,000 U.S. Treasury Note at 1.000% due 01/15/14 with value of $94,682,057.	$	92,825,000		92,825,000
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $116,907,963)				116,907,963
Total Investments—101.1% (Cost $1,909,857,080#)				1,982,892,013
Other Assets and Liabilities (net)—(1.1)%				(21,163,929	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	1,961,728,084

* Non-income producing security.

# As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $1,937,941,150. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $200,354,591 and $(155,403,728), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $44,950,863 for federal income tax purposes.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2011, the market value of securities loaned was $23,398,943 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $24,082,963. The cash collateral is invested in a money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian.

(b) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities lending transactions.

(ADR)— An American Depositary Receipt is a certificate issued by a custodian bank representing the right to receive securities of the foreign issuer described. Trading on exchanges not located in the United States or Canada significantly influences the value of ADRs.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

6

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2011

FAIR VALUE HIERARCHY

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) defines fair market value as the price that the Portfolio would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation methods and requires disclosure of the fair value hierarchy that segregates fair value measurements into three levels. Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy are defined as follows:

Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments

Level 2 - other significant observable inputs (including, but not limited to, unadjusted quoted prices for similar investments in markets that are either active or inactive; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, default rates, etc.)

Level 3 - significant unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are unavailable (including the Portfolio's own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. For a change in the methodology used, transfers between levels will be recognized as of the beginning of the reporting period. Information on transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, if any, will be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table below. A reconciliation of Level 3 securities, if any, will also be disclosed following the fair value hierarchy table. For more information about the Portfolio’s policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio's investments as of December 31, 2011:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Total Common Stocks*	$	1,865,984,050	$	—	$	—	$	1,865,984,050
Short-Term Investments
Mutual Funds		24,082,963		—		—		24,082,963
Repurchase Agreement		—		92,825,000		—		92,825,000
Total Short-Term Investments		24,082,963		92,825,000		—		116,907,963
Total Investments	$	1,890,067,013	$	92,825,000	$	—	$	1,982,892,013

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

7

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2011

Assets
Investments at value (a)(b)	$	1,890,067,013
Repurchase Agreement		92,825,000
Cash		406
Receivable for investments sold		7,483,683
Receivable for shares sold		455,711
Dividends receivable		4,627,098
Interest receivable		53
Total assets		1,995,458,964
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		8,057,736
Shares redeemed		393,857
Collateral for securities loaned		24,082,963
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		949,562
Distribution and service fees - Class B		117,012
Administration fees		8,089
Custodian and accounting fees		11,260
Deferred trustees' fees		25,067
Other expenses		85,334
Total liabilities		33,730,880
Net Assets	$	1,961,728,084
Net Assets Represented by
Paid in surplus	$	2,461,038,506
Accumulated net realized loss		(602,819,074	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments		73,034,933
Undistributed net investment income		30,473,719
Net Assets	$	1,961,728,084
Net Assets
Class A	$	1,406,454,598
Class B		555,273,486
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		150,880,931
Class B		59,817,235
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	9.32
Class B		9.28

* The Portfolio is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares.

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreement, was $1,817,032,080.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $23,398,943.

Statement of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	42,908,771
Interest (b)		357,149
Total investment income		43,265,920
Expenses
Management fees		10,486,963
Administration fees		90,033
Custodian and accounting fees		129,457
Distribution and service fees - Class B		1,456,265
Audit and tax services		33,061
Legal		33,286
Trustees' fees and expenses		35,424
Shareholder reporting		128,031
Insurance		8,841
Miscellaneous		18,403
Total expenses		12,419,764
Net investment income		30,846,156
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments and Futures Contracts
Net realized gain on:
Investments		112,783,923
Futures contracts		165,927
Net realized gain on investments and futures contracts		112,949,850
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments		(221,232,096	)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments and futures contracts		(108,282,246	)
Net Decrease in Net Assets from Operations	$	(77,436,090	)

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $617,339.

(b) Includes net income on securities loaned of $349,286.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

8

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
Operations
Net investment income	$	30,846,156		$	17,999,953
Net realized gain on investments and futures contracts		112,949,850			73,642,777
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments		(221,232,096	)		98,162,346
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations		(77,436,090	)		189,805,076
Distributions to Shareholders
From net investment income
Class A		(11,390,619	)		(13,683,951	)
Class B		(6,595,624	)		(7,893,571	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from distributions		(17,986,243	)		(21,577,522	)
Net increase (decrease) in net assets from capital share transactions		646,587,034			(46,118,286	)
Net Increase in Net Assets		551,164,701			122,109,268
Net assets at beginning of period		1,410,563,383			1,288,454,115
Net assets at end of period	$	1,961,728,084		$	1,410,563,383
Undistributed net investment income at end of period	$	30,473,719		$	17,969,864

Other Information:
Capital Shares
Transactions in capital shares were as follows:
	Year Ended December 31, 2011						Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		70,473,823		$	718,371,185			10,668,190		$	92,363,242
Reinvestments		1,131,144			11,390,619			1,520,439			13,683,951
Redemptions		(7,413,049	)		(70,355,378	)		(18,307,373	)		(162,096,992	)
Net increase (decrease)		64,191,918		$	659,406,426			(6,118,744	)	$	(56,049,799	)
Class B
Sales		9,384,811		$	89,864,026			9,354,005		$	80,567,165
Reinvestments		656,935			6,595,624			878,039			7,893,571
Redemptions		(11,448,805	)		(109,279,042	)		(9,141,011	)		(78,529,223	)
Net increase (decrease)		(1,407,059	)	$	(12,819,392	)		1,091,033		$	9,931,513
Increase (decrease) derived from capital shares transactions				$	646,587,034					$	(46,118,286	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

9

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	9.55		$	8.43		$	6.85		$	11.26		$	11.95
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.17			0.13			0.13			0.21			0.25
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.27	)		1.14			1.64			(4.06	)		(0.49	)
Total from investment operations		(0.10	)		1.27			1.77			(3.85	)		(0.24	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.13	)		(0.15	)		(0.19	)		(0.19	)		(0.19	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.37	)		(0.26	)
Total distributions		(0.13	)		(0.15	)		(0.19	)		(0.56	)		(0.45	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	9.32		$	9.55		$	8.43		$	6.85		$	11.26
Total Return (%)		(1.17	)		15.12			26.89			(35.79	)		(2.31	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.61			0.64			0.64			0.61			0.61
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.61			0.64			0.64			0.61			0.61
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.81			1.51			1.95			2.35			2.04
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		24.5			29.1			43.8			40.2			22.2
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	1,406.5		$	828.0		$	782.7		$	1,257.6		$	1,839.2

	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008			2007
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	9.52		$	8.41		$	6.83		$	11.22		$	11.91
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income(a)		0.14			0.11			0.10			0.19			0.22
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.27	)		1.13			1.65			(4.04	)		(0.48	)
Total from investment operations		(0.13	)		1.24			1.75			(3.85	)		(0.26	)
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.11	)		(0.13	)		(0.17	)		(0.17	)		(0.17	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.37	)		(0.26	)
Total distributions		(0.11	)		(0.13	)		(0.17	)		(0.54	)		(0.43	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	9.28		$	9.52		$	8.41		$	6.83		$	11.22
Total Return (%)		(1.48	)		14.85			26.57			(35.91	)		(2.49	)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.86			0.89			0.89			0.86			0.86
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (%)(b)		0.86			0.89			0.89			0.86			0.85
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.50			1.28			1.39			2.10			1.80
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		24.5			29.1			43.8			40.2			22.2
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	555.3		$	582.6		$	505.8		$	107.7		$	162.0

(a) Per share amounts based on average shares outstanding during the period.

(b) Includes the effects of management fee waivers and expenses reimbursed by the Adviser, if applicable.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

10

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011

1. Organization

Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) is organized as a statutory trust under the laws of Delaware, as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust currently offers fifty-four portfolios (the “Portfolios”), each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Shares in the Portfolio are not offered directly to the general public and are currently available only to separate accounts established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

The Portfolio has registered four classes of shares: Class A, B, C and E Shares. Class A and B Shares are currently offered by the Portfolio. Shares of each Class of the Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Portfolio and generally give the shareholder the same voting, dividend, liquidation, and other rights. Investment income, realized and unrealized capital gains and losses, the common expenses of the Portfolio and certain Portfolio-level expense reductions, if any, are allocated on a pro rata basis to each Class based on the relative net assets of each Class to the net assets of the Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution expenses.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) which require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2011 through the date that the financial statements were issued.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Debt securities (other than short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less) including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; U.S. government agencies; U.S. treasury obligations; sovereign issues; term loans; and non-U.S. bonds are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MLA” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., or the relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board of Trustees of the Portfolio (the “Board”). Such quotations utilize matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar securities. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Mortgage and asset-backed securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. These securities are also generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser or relevant Subadviser pursuant to authorization of the Board. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, estimated cash flows for each tranche, market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data, and incorporate deal collateral performance, as available. Mortgage and asset-backed securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Short term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair market value, and are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock that are traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges are generally valued at their last sale price on the principal trading market. Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange or other exchanges for which there is no reported sale during the day are valued at the last reported bid price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for that security by the Board or its delegates. If no closing price is available, then such securities are valued at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter are generally valued at the last reported sales price. To the extent these securities are actively traded and valuation adjustments are not applied, they are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets or valued by reference to similar instruments are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Equity securities (including rights and warrants) which are listed on foreign stock exchanges normally are valued at the market closing price, the last sale price on the day the securities are valued or, lacking any sales on such day, at the bid price. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain equity securities that are solely traded on foreign exchanges closing before the U.S. market to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the close of the U.S. market. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by an independent third party to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets closing before the U.S. market in order to adjust for possible stale pricing that may occur between the close of these foreign exchanges and the time of the Portfolio valuation. Securities using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

11

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

Investments in registered open-end management investment companies are valued at reported net asset value per share and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued based on the mean between closing bid and asked prices of the forward currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets on a daily basis as provided by a reliable bank or dealer. These contracts are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, whether on securities, indices, futures contracts, or otherwise, traded on exchanges are valued at the last sales price available as of the close of business on the day of valuation or, if there is no such sale price available, at the last reported bid price. Options on currencies are valued at the spot price each day. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other options traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received or options valued by an evaluated quote provided by an independent pricing vendor are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts, which are traded on commodity exchanges, are valued at their closing prices as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts traded on inactive markets where a broker quotation is received are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options and futures contracts that are traded over-the-counter are generally valued on the basis of broker dealer quotations or pricing service providers who use a series of techniques, including simulation pricing models, to determine the value of the contracts. The pricing models use inputs that are observed from actively quoted markets such as issuer details, indices, spreads, interest rates, curves and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or reliable for a security, the fair value of the security will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by and under the general supervision of the Board. The Board has delegated the determination in good faith of the fair value of securities for which current market quotations are not readily available to a Valuation Committee established by the Board. Market quotes and other observable inputs are considered not readily available in circumstances where there is an absence of current or reliable market-based data. In addition, market quotes would be considered not readily available when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the exchanges or markets on which the securities trade do not open for trading for the entire day and no other market prices are available. When the Portfolio uses fair value pricing, it may take into account any factors it deems appropriate, including significant assumptions and unobservable inputs. The value of securities used by the Portfolio to calculate its net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and the fair value determined for a security may be materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of that security. These securities are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Investment Transactions and Related Investment Income - Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or, for certain foreign securities, when notified. Interest income, which includes amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recorded on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses on investments and unrealized appreciation and depreciation are determined on the identified cost basis, which is the same basis used for federal income tax purposes. Foreign income and foreign capital gains on some foreign securities may be subject to foreign taxes, which are accrued as applicable.

Income Taxes - It is the Portfolio’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations thereunder, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute, with respect to each taxable year, all of its taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal and various state tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from security transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations that may differ from GAAP. Permanent book and tax basis differences relating to shareholder distributions will result in reclassification between under/over distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses and paid in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to futures transactions, deferred trustees’ compensation, capital loss carryforwards losses deferred due to wash sales, and return of capital from certain securities as applicable. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

Securities Lending - The Portfolio may lend its portfolio securities to certain qualified brokers who borrow securities in order to complete certain securities transactions. By lending its portfolio securities, the Portfolio attempts to increase its net investment income through the receipt of income on the loaned securities. Any gain or loss in the market price of the loaned securities that might occur and any interest earned or dividends declared during the term of the loan would accrue to the account of the Portfolio.

12

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

2. Significant Accounting Policies - continued

The Trust has entered into a securities lending arrangement with the custodian, State Street Bank and Trust Company (the “custodian”). Under this arrangement, the custodian is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral at least equal to 102% of the market value of the loaned securities (105% for foreign equity securities), at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities must be maintained for the duration of the loan. Cash collateral is generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Prime Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The Navigator Portfolio is a registered money market fund which invests in a variety of high quality U.S. dollar-denominated instruments. If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower shall be required to deliver, by the close of business on the following business day, an additional amount of collateral so that the total amount of posted collateral equals at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of net income (income after the deduction of expenses and fees of the Navigator Portfolio) on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the custodian and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by U.S. Treasuries, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the custodian. The risks associated with lending portfolio securities include, but are not limited to, possible delays in receiving additional collateral or in the recovery of the loaned securities, possible loss of rights in the collateral should the borrower fail financially, as well as risk of loss in the value of the collateral or the value of the investments made with the collateral. Net interest income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2011 is disclosed in the footnotes to the Statement of Operations. Any outstanding loans by the Portfolio at December 31, 2011 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements with selected commercial banks and broker-dealers, under which the Portfolio acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell the securities at an agreed upon time and at an agreed upon price. The Portfolio, through the custodian or a subcustodian, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing repurchase agreements. The Portfolio requires the custodian to take possession, to have legally segregated in the Federal Reserve Book Entry System, or to have segregated within the custodian’s vault, all securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be at least equal to 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In connection with transactions in repurchase agreements, if the seller defaults and the value of the collateral declines or if the seller enters an insolvency proceeding, realization of the collateral by the Portfolio may be delayed, limited or wholly denied.

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - The Trust is managed by the Adviser. The Trust has entered into a management agreement with the Adviser (the “Management Agreement”) for investment management services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio. The Adviser is subject to the supervision and direction of the Board and has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser has entered into a subadvisory agreement with Invesco Advisers, Inc. (the “Adviser”), effective June 1, 2010, for investment subadvisory services in connection with the investment management of the Portfolio.

Subject to the supervision and direction of the Board, the Adviser supervises the Subadviser and has full discretion with respect to the retention or renewal of the subadvisory agreement. The Adviser pays the Subadviser a fee based on the Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

Under the terms of the Portfolio’s Management Agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser a monthly fee based upon annual rates applied to the Portfolio’s average daily net assets as follows:

Management Fees earned by the Adviser for the year  ended December 31, 2011	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$10,486,963		0.65	%	First $500 Million
		0.60	%	$500 Million to $1 Billion
		0.525	%	Over $1 Billion

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of the Adviser; however, such officers and trustees receive no compensation from the Trust.

Transfer Agency Agreement - MetLife serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. MetLife receives no fees for its services to the Trust under the transfer agency agreement.

13

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

3. Investment Management Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates - continued

Distribution Agreement and Plan - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the Distributor for the Trust’s Class A and Class B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, Inc., an affiliate of the Adviser. The Class B distribution plan provides that the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio, may pay annually up to 0.50% of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares with respect to activities primarily intended to result in the sale of Class B Shares. However, under the Class B distribution agreement, payments to the Distributor for activities pursuant to the Class B distribution plan are currently limited to payments at an annual rate equal to 0.25% of average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable to its Class B Shares.

Under the terms of the Class B distribution plan and distribution agreement, the Portfolio is authorized to make payments monthly to the Distributor that may be used to pay or reimburse entities providing distribution and shareholder servicing with respect to the Class B Shares for such entities’ fees or expenses incurred.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee of the Trust who is not currently an employee of the Adviser or any of its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Portfolio. A deferred compensation plan (the “Plan”) is available to the Trustees on a voluntary basis. Deferred amounts remain in the Trust until distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. The value of a participating Trustee’s deferral account is based on theoretical investments of deferred amounts, on the normal payment dates, in certain portfolios of the Trust or Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. as designated by the participating Trustee. Changes in the value of participants’ deferral accounts are reflected as Trustees’ fees and expenses in the Statement of Operations. The portion of the accrued obligations allocated to the Portfolio, if any, under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2011 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$—	$	1,049,078,363	$	—	$	429,486,825

During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio engaged in security purchase transactions with other affiliated portfolios. These purchase transactions amounted to $302,606,009. The Portfolio also engaged in security transactions with other accounts managed by Invesco Advisers, Inc. that amounted to $3,013,278 in Purchases and $4,831,606 in Sales of investments which are included above.

5. Investments in Derivative Instruments

Futures Contracts - The Portfolio may buy and sell futures contracts (on recognized exchanges) as a hedge, to maintain investment exposure to a target asset class or to enhance return. The Portfolio may be subject to fluctuations in equity prices, interest rates, commodity prices and foreign currency exchange rates in the normal course of pursuing its investment objective. Futures contracts are standardized agreements to buy or sell a security, or deliver a final cash settlement price in connection with an index, interest rate, currency, or other asset. The Portfolio must deposit an amount (“initial margin”) equal to a certain percentage of the face value of the futures contract. The initial margin may be in the form of cash or securities which is returned when the Portfolio’s obligations under the contract have been satisfied. If cash is deposited as the initial margin, it is shown as “restricted cash” on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Futures contracts are marked-to-market daily and subsequent payments (“variation margin”) are made or received by the Portfolio depending on the daily fluctuations in the value of the futures contracts. These amounts are reflected as receivables or payables on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Risks of entering into futures contracts (and related options) include the possibility that the market for these instruments may be illiquid and that a change in the value of the contract or option may not correlate perfectly with changes in the value of the underlying instrument. Futures contracts are exchange traded and the exchange’s clearinghouse, as counterparty to all exchange traded futures, guarantees the futures contracts against default.

During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio entered into equity index futures contracts which were subject to equity price risk. During the period April 28 through May 02, 2011, the Portfolio had bought and sold $265,962,637 in equity index futures contracts. At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio did not have any open futures contracts. For the year ended December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had realized gains in the amount of $165,927 which are shown under Net realized gain on futures contracts in the Statement of Operations.

6. Contractual Obligations

The Trust has a variety of indemnification obligations under contracts with its service providers. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Portfolio that have not yet occurred.

7. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the other party to a transaction to perform (credit and counterparty risk). The value of securities held by the Portfolio

14

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

7. Market, Credit and Counterparty Risk - continued

may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the companies whose securities are owned by the Portfolio; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. The Portfolio may be exposed to counterparty risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Portfolio has unsettled or open transactions may default. The potential loss could exceed the value of the financial assets and liabilities recorded in the financial statements. Financial assets that potentially expose the Portfolio to credit risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. In order to preserve certain safeguards for derivatives and non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit losses by entering into master netting agreements with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The Portfolio reduces the credit risk associated with favorable contracts by entering into a master netting arrangement to the extent that all amounts with the counterparty are terminated and settled on a net basis if an event of default occurs. The Portfolio’s overall exposure to credit risk on derivative instruments subject to master netting arrangements can change substantially within a short period, as it is affected by each transaction subject to the arrangement.

The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2011	2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
$17,986,243	$	21,577,522	$	—	$	—	$	17,986,243	$	21,577,522

As of December 31, 2011, the components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a federal income tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed Ordinary Income	Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gain		Net Unrealized Appreciation		Loss Carryforwards			Total
$30,498,786	$	—	$	44,950,861	$	(574,735,002	)	$	(499,285,355	)

The Portfolio utilizes the provisions of the federal income tax laws that provide for the carryforward of capital losses for prior years, offsetting such losses against any future realized capital gains. Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the "Act"), net capital losses recognized after December 22, 2010 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses. As a transition rule, the Act requires that post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses.

As of December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and the pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards and expiration dates were as follows:

Expiring 12/31/2016	Expiring 12/31/2017		Total
$117,210,374	$	457,524,628	$	574,735,002

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-03 “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements” related to the accounting for repurchase agreements and similar agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. This ASU modifies the criteria for determining effective control of transferred assets and as a result certain agreements may now be accounted for as secured borrowings. The ASU is effective prospectively for new transfers and existing transactions that are modified in the interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-03 and its impact on the financial statements.

In May 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04 “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).” ASU 2011-04 includes common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. For fair value measurements categorized in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, ASU 2011-04 will require disclosures about quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. In addition, ASU 2011-04 will require reporting entities to make disclosures

15

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2011—(Continued)

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements - continued

about amounts and reasons for all transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. The new and revised disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-04 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11 “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” These common disclosure requirements are intended to help investors and other financial statement users to better assess the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a portfolio’s financial position. They also improve transparency in the reporting of how companies mitigate credit risk, including disclosure of related collateral pledged or received. In addition, ASU 2011-11 facilitates comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. ASU 2011-11 requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the financial position; and disclose instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting agreement. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. Management is currently evaluating the implications of ASU 2011-11 and its impact on financial statements disclosures.

16

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Met Investors Series Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio, one of the portfolios constituting Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) as of December 31, 2011, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2011, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust as of December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 23, 2012

17

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trust, their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92614. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is indicated by an asterisk. Those Trustees who are not “interested persons” as defined in the 1940 Act are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Additional information about the Trustees is available in the Statement of Additional Information, which is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

The Trustees
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustees
Elizabeth M. Forget* (45)	President and Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since May 2007, Senior Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; since December 2000, President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; July 2000 to April 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.		88	Since August 2006, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; various MetLife-affiliated boards.
Independent Trustees
Stephen M. Alderman (52)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 1991, Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.		54	Director, International Truck Leasing Corp.
Jack R. Borsting (82)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	Since November 2006, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC); from 2001 to 2005, Professor of Business Administration and Dean Emeritus.		54	Director, Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital; Trustee, The Rose Hills Foundation; formerly, Member, Army Science Board; from 2005 to 2008, Lead Governor, American Stock Exchange; from 1992 to 2002, Director, Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Robert Boulware (55)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2004 to 2009, Director, Norwood Promotional Products, Inc.; from 2007 to 2008, Director, Wealthpoint Advisors (a business development company); from 2007 to 2009, Director, Holladay Bank; from 1992 to 2006, President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Fund Distributor, LLC.		54	Since 2005, Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance).
Daniel A. Doyle (53)	Trustee	Indefinite; From February 2007 to present	Since November 2011, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy, Inc. (public utility); from June 2009 to November 2011 independent business consultant; from October 2000 to June 2009, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ATC Management, Inc. (public utility).		54	Director, Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation.

18

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex(2) overseen by Trustee		Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Independent Trustees - continued
Susan C. Gause (59)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 to present	From 2000 to December 2002, Chief Executive Officer of Allianz Dresdner Asset Management; since 2003, private investor.		54	None
Dawn M. Vroegop (45)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 to present	From September 1999 to September 2003, Managing Director, Dresdner RCM Global Investors.		88	Since 2009, Director, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.**; since 2003, Director and Investment Committee Chair, City College of San Francisco Foundation.

The Executive Officers
Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Jeffrey L. Bernier (40)	Vice President	From February 2009 to present	Since December 2007, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since 2008, Senior Vice President of MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; from July 2004 to December 2007, Director and Senior Investment Analyst of Investment Management Services for John Hancock Financial Services.
Peter H. Duffy (56)	Vice President	From February 2011 to present	Since 2001, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC and since 2004, Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Halperin (44)	Chief Compliance Officer	From November 2005 to present	Since March 2006, Vice President, MetLife, Inc., since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, Met Investors Series Trust; since February 2008, Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; from November 2005 to February 2008, Interim Chief Compliance Officer, Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.; since August 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC and a predecessor company; since October 2006, Chief Compliance Officer, MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.
Jeffrey A. Tupper (41)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	From August 2002 to present	Since February 2009, Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; since October 2006, Assistant Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (57)	Secretary	From 2011 to present	Since March 2011, Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; from 1996 until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBerstein Investments, Inc.

* Ms. Forget is an “interested person” of the Trust because of her positions with the Adviser and certain of its affiliates and her ownership of securities issued by MetLife, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Adviser.

** Indicates a directorship with a registered investment company or a company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(1) Previous positions during the past five years with the Trust, MetLife, Inc. or the Adviser. For certain individuals, the information provided may be for periods longer than the past five years.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 54 portfolios, each a series of the Trust, and 34 portfolios, each a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc.

19

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Trustees and Officers (Unaudited)—(Continued)

Quarterly Portfolio Schedule

The Trust files Form N-Q for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year. The Trust’s Forms N-Q will be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Trust’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Once filed, the most recent Form N-Q will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 and on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Proxy Voting Record

The Trust, on behalf of each of its Portfolios, has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its proxy voting record for the 12-month period ending June 30 on Form N-PX. Form N-PX must be filed by the Trust each year by August 31. Once filed, the most recent Form N-PX will be available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

20

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust (the “Trust”) held on November 7-8, 2011, the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not considered to be “interested persons” of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), approved for an annual period the continuation of the Trust’s advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) and the applicable sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement,” and collectively with the Advisory Agreement, the “Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser,” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”) for each of the series of the Trust, including the Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).¹

In considering the Agreements, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers relating to each Portfolio, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, including comparative performance, fee and expense information for an appropriate peer group of similar mutual funds, performance information for relevant benchmark indices and other information regarding the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers under their respective Agreements. The Board also took into account information provided to the Board in its meetings throughout the year with respect to the services provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, including quarterly performance reports prepared by management containing reviews of investment results, and periodic presentations from the Sub-Advisers with respect to the Portfolios they manage. The Independent Trustees also assessed reports provided by the Board’s independent consultant, who reviewed and provided analyses regarding investment performance, fees and expenses, and other information provided by, or at the direction of, the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers, as more fully discussed below.

The Independent Trustees were separately advised by independent legal counsel throughout the process. Prior to voting to continue the Agreements at the November meeting, the Independent Trustees also received a memorandum from their independent counsel discussing the legal standards for their consideration of the proposed continuation of the Agreements. The Board also met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2011 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements and to request any additional information they considered reasonably necessary to their deliberations. The Independent Trustees also discussed the proposed continuation of the Agreements in private sessions with their independent legal counsel at which no representatives of management were present.

In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser and any applicable Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to each Portfolio, the Board reviewed and analyzed the factors it deemed relevant, including: (1) the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers; (2) the performance of the Portfolios as compared to a peer group and an appropriate index; (3) the Adviser’s and each of the Sub-Adviser’s personnel and operations; (4) the financial condition of the Adviser and of the Sub-Advisers; (5) the level and method of computing each Portfolio’s advisory and sub-advisory fees; (6) the profitability of the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement and of the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements; (7) any “fall-out” benefits to the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates (i.e., ancillary benefits realized by the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or their affiliates from the Adviser’s or Sub-Advisers’ relationship with the Trust); (8) the anticipated effect of growth in size on each Portfolio’s performance and expenses; (9) fees paid to the Sub-Advisers by comparable institutional and retail accounts; and (10) possible conflicts of interest. The Board also considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services to be provided to the Portfolios by the Adviser’s affiliates, including distribution services.

Nature, extent and quality of services. In considering the nature, extent and quality of the services to be provided by the Adviser to the Portfolios, the Board took into account the extensive responsibilities that the Adviser has as investment manager to the Portfolios, including the provision of investment advisory services to: (i) MetLife Aggressive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Defensive Strategy Portfolio, MetLife Growth Strategy Portfolio, and MetLife Moderate Strategy Portfolio (together, the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”), (ii) American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds Growth Allocation Portfolio, and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (together, the “American Funds of Funds”), (iii) the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and (iv) the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, the selection of the Sub-Advisers for the other Portfolios and oversight of the Sub-Advisers’ compliance with fund policies and objectives, review of brokerage matters including with respect to trade allocation and best execution, oversight of general fund compliance with federal and state laws, and the implementation of Board directives as they relate to the Portfolios. The Board also considered the Adviser’s risk management processes. The Adviser’s role in coordinating the activities of the Portfolios’ other service providers was also considered. The Board also evaluated the expertise and performance of the investment personnel with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the American Funds of Funds, the Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, and the MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, and of the personnel overseeing the Sub-Advisers of the other Portfolios, and compliance with each Portfolio’s investment restrictions, tax and other requirements. The Board considered information received from the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures established pursuant to Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act, including the policies and procedures in place relating to proxy voting. The Board also took into account its knowledge of the Adviser’s management and the quality of the performance of its duties through Board meetings, discussions and reports during the preceding year.

¹ The AQR Global Risk Balanced Portfolio, AllianceBernstein Global Dynamic Allocation Portfolio, BlackRock Global Tactical Strategies Portfolio, MetLife Balanced Plus Portfolio, Pyramis^® Government Income Portfolio, and Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio recently commenced operations and, therefore, the Agreements with respect to these Portfolios were not up for renewal. In addition, the Sub-Advisory Agreements with respect to the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio and Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio were approved at the February 14-15, 2011 and May 24-25, 2011 meetings, respectively, and therefore, were not up for renewal.

21

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The Board also recognized the Adviser^’s reputation and long-standing experience in serving as an investment adviser to the Trust, and considered the benefit to shareholders of investing in funds that are part of a family of variable annuity portfolios offering a variety of investments. In addition, the Board reviewed the financial condition of the Adviser and whether it had the financial wherewithal to provide a high level and quality of services to the Portfolios. In its review, the Board also received and took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered information provided to the Board by each Sub-Adviser, including each Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV, as well as information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as its compensation program. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background and responsibilities of the Sub-Adviser’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Portfolios. The Board also considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also took into account the Sub-Adviser’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board noted each Sub-Adviser’s regulatory history, including whether it was currently involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as appropriate. The Board also noted that the CCO and his staff conduct regular, periodic compliance reviews with each of the Sub-Advisers and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding the same, which include evaluating the regulatory compliance systems of the Sub-Advisers and procedures reasonably designed by them to assure compliance with the federal securities laws, including issues related to late trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing, and proxy voting procedures, among others. The Board also took into account the financial condition of each Sub-Adviser.

The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy. The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio which is consistent with the Portfolio’s investment objectives, the selection of investment securities and the placement of orders for the purchase and sale of such securities, as well as the implementation of compliance controls related to performance of these services. The Board also reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s brokerage policies and practices, including with respect to best execution and soft dollars.

Based on its consideration and review of the foregoing information, the Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and by each Sub-Adviser were satisfactory and that there was a reasonable basis on which to conclude that each would provide a high quality of investment services to the Portfolios.

Performance. The Board considered the performance of the Portfolios as described in the quarterly reports prepared by management, and as also analyzed in reports prepared by the Independent Trustees’ independent consultant. The Board noted that the Adviser reviews with the Board on a quarterly basis detailed information about the Portfolios’ performance results, portfolio composition and investment strategies. The Board also reviewed and considered a separate report prepared by Lipper Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent third party, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance, expenses, and fees to comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). In addition, the Independent Trustees met separately with a representative of Bobroff Consulting, Inc., an independent consultant (“Bobroff”), at a special board meeting in September 2011, to review the separate reports prepared by such consultant (“Bobroff Report”), which analyzed the report prepared by Lipper, as well as certain of the other factors to be considered by the Board. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s more recent performance subsequent to the performance period covered by the Lipper reports, and management’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board closely reviewed the Portfolios’ performance records and the Adviser’s and Sub-Advisers’ management styles and long-term performance records with the Portfolios and comparable funds. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board was mindful of the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and noted that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios. The Board also took into account its discussions with management regarding factors that contributed to the performance of each Portfolio.

Among other data relating specifically to the Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe for the one- and three- year periods ended June 30, 2011, and underperformed the median of its Performance Universe for the five- year period ended June 30, 2011. The Board also considered that the Portfolio outperformed its Lipper Index for the one-, three- and five- year periods ended June 30, 2011. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Russell 1000 Value Index, for the one- year period ended September 30, 2011, and outperformed its benchmark for the three- and five- year periods ended September 30, 2011. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance. Based on its review, the Board concluded that the Portfolio’s overall performance was adequate.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave substantial consideration to the advisory fees payable under the Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory fees payable under each of the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this regard, the Board reviewed the advisory fees payable in the aggregate as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis based on information provided by the Adviser. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Bobroff, also examined the fees paid by each Portfolio in light of fees paid to other investment managers by comparable funds and the method of computing each Portfolio’s fee, as well as considered the fees charged by the Adviser to manage other comparable funds, as applicable. The Lipper report included comparisons of the Adviser’s fee schedule with that of its peers based on an asset-based analysis of relative fee structures according to

22

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

the size of each Portfolio. In addition, the Board considered the Portfolios’ advisory and sub-advisory fees and total expenses as compared to similarly situated investment companies underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios as determined by Lipper. The Board considered each Portfolio’s ranking within a smaller group of peer funds chosen by Lipper (the “Expense Group”), as well as the Portfolio’s ranking within broader groups of funds (the “Expense Universe” and the “Sub-advised Expense Universe”). The Board also considered each Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees, as applicable, as compared to the Sub-advised Expense Universe as well as a smaller group of funds (the “Sub-advised Expense Group”). In comparing each Portfolio’s actual and contractual management fee to that of comparable funds, the Board noted that such fee includes both advisory and administrative fees.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser, not the Portfolios, out of the advisory fee. It was further noted that the Adviser negotiates such fees at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation agreements with certain of the Portfolios as noted below, pursuant to which the Adviser has agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee and/or reimburse certain expenses as a means of limiting a Portfolio’s total annual operating expenses. In addition, the Board noted that the Adviser effected fee reductions in 2011 with respect to several Portfolios.

With respect to each sub-advised Portfolio, the Board also compared the sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser to fees charged by the Portfolio’s Sub-Adviser to manage other sub-advised portfolios and portfolios not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act, such as separate accounts, as applicable. The Board considered the fee comparisons in light of the differences required to manage different types of accounts.

With respect to the Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio, the Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the Expense Group median, the Expense Universe median and the Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the normalized median of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were slightly above the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Adviser had recently negotiated a reduction to the Portfolio’s sub-advisory fee schedule through the implementation of an additional breakpoint and that the Adviser agreed to waive a corresponding portion of its advisory fee in order for shareholders to benefit from the additional breakpoint being implemented at the sub-advisory fee level effective January 1, 2012. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Board concluded that the advisory and sub-advisory fees are consistent with industry norms and are fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on an aggregate basis with respect to all Portfolios, as well as on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board noted that the advisory fee is in addition to the fees received by the Adviser and its affiliates with regard to the other Portfolios of the Trust or of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc., in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio may invest. In considering the profitability to the Adviser from the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio, the Board took into consideration the profitability to the Adviser of the funds underlying the Asset Allocation Portfolios and Met/Franklin Templeton Founding Strategy Portfolio. With respect to the other Portfolios, the Board noted that a component of profitability of the Adviser was the margin between the sub-advisory fees that the Adviser receives from the Trust and the portion of those fees paid to the Sub-Advisers. In this regard, the Board took into account certain comparative information in the Lipper report, as well as management’s discussion of the same. The Board also reviewed the Adviser’s unaudited income statements and balance sheet information supplied by the Adviser regarding costs borne by the Adviser’s affiliates that support the operations of the Adviser but are not reflected on the unaudited income statements of the Adviser, as well as considered the profitability of the insurance products, the function of which is supported in part by the Adviser’s revenues under the Advisory Agreement, and other information and analysis prepared by the Adviser. With respect to the American Funds Bond Portfolio, American Funds Growth Portfolio, American Funds Growth-Income Portfolio, American Funds Global Small Capitalization Portfolio and American Funds International Portfolio, the Board noted that the Adviser currently does not receive an advisory fee. The Board also considered that the Distributor, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the products. The Board concluded after extensive discussions with management that the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with each Portfolio was reasonable in light of all relevant factors.

In considering the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates of their relationships with the Portfolios, the Board noted that the fees under the Sub-Advisory Agreements were paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fees that it receives under the Advisory Agreement. The Board also relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the Sub-Advisory Agreements and the fees thereunder at arm’s length. The Board reviewed portfolio specific data with regard to the profitability of the Portfolios to each Sub-Adviser, as available, and analyzed the reasonableness of such profitability finding no indication of excessive profitability. However, the Board placed more reliance on the fact that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was negotiated at arm’s length and that the advisory fee was paid by the Adviser than on Sub-Adviser profitability.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered the effect of the Portfolios’ growth in size on their performances and fees. The Board noted that the fee schedules for most of the Portfolios contain breakpoints that reduce the fee rate above specified asset levels. The Board noted those Portfolios that did not contain breakpoints in the advisory fee and took into account management’s discussion of the same. The Board noted that those Portfolios with advisory fee schedules containing breakpoints generally reflect the inclusion of breakpoints in the sub-advisory fee schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement for each Portfolio as a percentage of assets at different

23

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

asset levels and possible economies of scale that may be realized if the assets of the Portfolio grow. Among other data, the Board examined the effect of each Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Lipper and Bobroff Reports, which compared fee schedules among peers. The Board also took into account that the Sub-Adviser fees are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee. The Board also noted that if the Portfolios’ assets increase over time, the Portfolios may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

With respect to the Van Kampen Comstock Portfolio, the Board noted that the Portfolio’s advisory fee and sub-advisory fee each contains breakpoints that reduce the advisory fee rate on assets above certain specified asset levels. The Board considered the fact that the Portfolio’s fee levels decline as portfolio assets increase. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s management fees are below the asset-weighted average of comparable funds at all asset levels. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the Portfolio, including breakpoints, was reasonable and appropriately reflects potential economies of scale.

Other factors. As part of its evaluation of the Adviser’s compensation, the Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust. Among them, the Board recognized that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as the Distributor for the Trust, and, as such, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate it for providing shareholder services and selling activities, which could lead to growth in the Trust’s assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board also considered that affiliates of the Adviser may benefit from certain indirect tax benefits relating to dividend received deductions and foreign tax credits. The Board concluded that ancillary benefits accruing to the Adviser and its affiliates by virtue of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment management and other services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Subadviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trust, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trust and reputational benefits. The Board concluded that the benefits accruing to the Subadvisers and their affiliates by virtue of the Subadvisers’ relationships to the Portfolios are fair and reasonable in light of the costs of providing investment advisory services to the Portfolios and the ongoing commitment of the Subadvisers to the Portfolios.

The Board considered any possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trust resulting from the nature of the Trust’s and the Adviser’s or the Subadvisers’ affiliations. Here, the Board considered possible conflicts of interest that may arise between the Trust and the Adviser or a Subadviser in connection with the services provided to the Trust and the various relationships that they and their affiliates may have with the Trust. The Board considered the procedures for monitoring and managing such potential conflicts.

Conclusion. In considering the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, did not identify any single factor as controlling, and each Trustee may have attributed different weights to various factors. The Board evaluated all information available to them on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and their determinations were made separately with respect to each Portfolio. Based on all of the above-mentioned considerations, and the recommendations of management, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, determined that approval of the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements was in the best interests of each Portfolio. After full consideration of these and other factors, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with the assistance of independent counsel, approved the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreement with respect to each Portfolio.

24

Item 2. Code of Ethics.

As of the end of the period covered by this report, the registrant has adopted a code of ethics that applies to the registrant’s principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer, or persons performing similar functions (the “Code of Ethics”). During the period covered by this report, no material amendments were made to the provisions of the Code of Ethics, nor did the registrant grant any waivers, including any implicit waivers, from any provision of the Code of Ethics.

The Code of Ethics is attached hereto as Exhibit 12(a)(1).

Item 3. Audit Committee Financial Expert.

The registrant’s board of trustees has determined that the registrant has at least one “audit committee financial expert” (as defined in Item 3 of Form N-CSR) serving on its audit committee. Mr. Daniel A. Doyle, Ms. Susan C. Gause and Mr. Jack R. Borsting have each been determined to be an “audit committee financial expert” and each is “independent” (as each term is defined in Item 3 of Form N-CSR).

Item 4. Principal Accountant Fees and Services.

Information provided in response to Item 4 includes amounts billed during the applicable time period for services rendered by Deloitte & Touche LLP (“D&T”), the registrant’s principal accountant.

(a) Audit Fees

The aggregate fees billed for professional services rendered by D&T for the audit of the registrant’s annual financial statements and for services that are normally provided by D&T in connection with statutory and regulatory filings for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2011 were $1,476,140 and $1,867,450, respectively.

(b) Audit-Related Fees

The registrant was not billed any fees by D&T for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2011 for assurance and related services that were reasonably related to the performance of the audit of the registrant’s financial statements.

During the fiscal years ended December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2011, no fees for assurance and related services that relate directly to the operations and financial reporting of the registrant were billed by D&T to the registrant’s investment adviser or any other entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the registrant’s investment adviser that provides ongoing services to the registrant.

(c) Tax Fees

The aggregate fees billed for professional services rendered by D&T for tax compliance, tax advice and tax planning in the form of preparation of excise filings and income tax returns for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2011 were $289,000 and $317,075, respectively.

During the fiscal years ended December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2011, no fees for tax compliance, tax advice or tax planning services that relate directly to the operations and financial reporting of the registrant were billed by D&T to the registrant’s investment adviser or any other entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the registrant’s investment adviser that provides ongoing services to the registrant.

(d) All Other Fees

The registrant was not billed for any other products or services provided by D&T for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2011 other than the services reported in paragraphs (a) through (c) above.

During the fiscal years ended December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2011, no fees for other products or services that relate directly to the operations and financial reporting of the registrant, other than the services reported in paragraphs (a) through (c) above, were billed by D&T to the registrant’s investment adviser or any other entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the registrant’s investment adviser that provides ongoing services to the registrant.

(e)(1) The audit committee of the registrant adopted Pre-Approval Procedures for Audit and Non-Audit Services (the “Procedures”) on August 9, 2007, as amended May 21, 2010 and February 14, 2011, which set forth the policies and procedures pursuant to which services to be performed by the auditor may be pre-approved.

A. Regular Pre-Approval Procedures

Except as provided in Paragraph B of the Procedures, the Audit Committee shall pre-approve at its regularly scheduled meetings the audit, audit-related, tax and other non-audit services to be rendered by the Auditor to the Trust (“Fund Services”) and certain non-audit services to be rendered by the Auditor to the Covered Affiliates (“Fund-Related Adviser Services”) which require pre-approval by the Audit Committee. In connection with such pre-approvals, the Auditor, or the Treasurer, with the assistance of the Auditor, shall provide the Audit Committee with a report containing information about each type of service to be pre-approved at the meeting, an explanation of why the service is being performed, and projected fees.

Pursuant to the Trust’s Audit Committee Charter, the Audit Committee shall specifically approve the engagement of the Auditor to annually audit and provide its opinion on the financial statements of the Trust’s portfolios (the “Portfolios”). The engagement of the Auditor to provide the Fund Services that are listed on Appendix B to these Procedures, however, which include services customarily required by one or more

of the Portfolios in the ordinary course of their operations, is hereby approved by the Audit Committee. Similarly, the engagement of the Auditor to provide the Fund-Related Adviser Services listed on Appendix C to these Procedures, which include services customarily required by one or more Covered Affiliates in the ordinary course of their operations, is hereby approved by the Audit Committee. The engagement of the Auditor to provide any other Fund Services or Fund-Related Adviser Services shall require prior approval by the Audit Committee and/or Chairman or another member of the Audit Committee in accordance with these Procedures.

The Auditor shall notify the Chairman of the Audit Committee as soon as practicable regarding its engagement to provide the Fund Services and Fund-Related Adviser Services listed on Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively. The Auditor and/or the Treasurer shall report to the Audit Committee at its next regularly scheduled meeting regarding all Fund Services and Fund-Related Adviser Services initiated since the last such report was rendered, including a general description of the services and projected fees, and the means by which such Fund Services and Fund-Related Adviser Services were approved by the Audit Committee (including those listed on Appendix B or Appendix C).

B. Interim Pre-Approval Procedures

If, in the opinion of the Treasurer, a proposed engagement needs to commence before the next regularly scheduled Audit Committee meeting, any member of the Audit Committee who is an independent Board member is authorized under these Procedures to pre-approve the engagement (a “Designated Member”). Such proposed engagement may include the provision of services listed in Appendix B and Appendix C insofar as the amount to be paid to the Auditor would exceed the dollar amount listed in Appendix B and Appendix C. In each such case, the Treasurer first will ask the Chairman of the Audit Committee to act as the Designated Member. If the Chairman of the Audit Committee is not available, the Treasurer will ask the Lead Independent Trustee of the Trust, and if he or she is not available, the Treasurer may ask any other member of the Audit Committee to act as Designated Member. The Treasurer will arrange for this engagement, coordinate with the Designated Member and provide, with the assistance of the Auditor, information about the service to be pre-approved. The Auditor may not commence the engagement under consideration until the Treasurer has indicated that pre-approval has been obtained from the Designated Member. The Designated Member who pre-approves any engagements in between regularly scheduled Audit Committee meetings must report any pre-approval decisions to the Audit Committee at its next regularly scheduled meeting.

C. Internal Controls

The Audit Committee expects the Auditor to implement and maintain effective internal controls to: (1) monitor the Auditor’s independence; (2) prevent the Auditor from providing any impermissible non-audit services to the Portfolios; and (3) prevent the Auditor from providing any Fund Services or Fund-Related Adviser Services without first obtaining assurances that any pre-approval required by these Procedures or by law or regulation has been obtained.

The Audit Committee also expects Fund management to develop, implement and maintain effective internal controls with respect to (2) and (3) above.

D. Scope of Procedures

These Procedures shall apply to both direct and indirect engagements of the Auditor. Indirect engagements are situations in which the Auditor is engaged by a service provider to a Fund or Covered Affiliate at a Covered Affiliate’s explicit or implicit direction or recommendation (e.g., the engagement of the Auditor by counsel to an Adviser Entity to provide services relating to a Fund or Covered Affiliate).

E. Amendments; Annual Approval by Audit Committee

The Audit Committee may amend these Procedures from time to time. Prompt notice of any amendments will be provided to the Auditor and Trust management. The Audit Committee shall review and approve these Procedures at least annually. Each approval of these Procedures shall be deemed to constitute a new prospective approval of those services listed in Appendix B and Appendix C as of the date of such approval.

(2) None of the services described under the categories, “Audit Related Fees,” “Tax Fees” or “All Other Fees,” were approved by the registrant’s audit committee pursuant to paragraph (c)(7)(i)(C) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X.

(f) Not applicable.

(g) The registrant, MetLife Advisers, LLC, the registrant’s investment adviser, and any other entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the registrant’s investment adviser that provides ongoing services to the registrant were not billed for any aggregate non-audit fees by D&T for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2011.

(h) Not applicable.

Item 5. Audit Committee of Listed Registrants.

Not applicable.

Item 6. Investments.

(a) Schedule of Investments is included as a part of the report to shareholders included under Item 1 of this Form N-CSR.

(b) Not applicable.

Item 7. Disclosure of Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures for Closed-End Management Investment Companies.

Not applicable.

Item 8. Portfolio Managers of Closed-End Management Investment Companies.

Not applicable.

Item 9. Purchases of Equity Securities by Closed-End Management Investment Company and Affiliated Purchasers.

Not applicable.

Item 10. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.

The registrant does not have procedures by which shareholders may recommend nominees to the registrant’s Board of Trustees.

Item 11. Controls and Procedures.

(a) Within 90 days of the filing date of this Form N-CSR, Elizabeth M. Forget, the registrant’s President, and Jeffrey A. Tupper, the registrant’s Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, reviewed the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 30a-3(c) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”)) (the “Procedures”) and evaluated their effectiveness. Based on their review, Ms. Forget and Mr. Tupper determined that the Procedures adequately ensure that information required to be disclosed by the registrant on Form N-CSR and Form N-Q is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods required by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

(b) There were no significant changes in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 30a-3(d) under the 1940 Act) that occurred during the registrant’s second fiscal quarter of the period covered by this report that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Item 12. Exhibits

(a)(1) Code of Ethics is attached hereto.

(a)(2) The certifications required by Rule 30a-2(a) under the 1940 Act are attached hereto.

(a)(3) Not applicable.

(b) The certifications required by Rule 30a-2(b) under the 1940 Act and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 are attached hereto.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

MET INVESTORS SERIES TRUST

By:	/s/ Elizabeth M. Forget
	Elizabeth M. Forget
	President
Date:	March 9, 2012

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

By:	/s/ Elizabeth M. Forget
	Elizabeth M. Forget
	President
Date:	March 9, 2012
By:	/s/ Jeffrey A. Tupper
	Jeffrey A. Tupper
	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
Date:	March 9, 2012